Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Jobcentre Closures

Liz Twist: What assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed closures of jobcentres on local communities in Scotland.

Damian Hinds: Most jobcentres are staying put. We are merging some into neighbouring offices to create bigger, multi-skilled teams, moving them into better buildings, or placing them into shared local authority space, all of which can lead to better customer service.

Liz Twist: In Glasgow, unemployment has consistently been higher than the national average, child poverty is rising, and the use of food banks has increased by 20% in the past two years. How can Ministers justify closing so many jobcentres, which provide vital support for people struggling to access the labour market?

Damian Hinds: I can confirm that Glasgow will continue to have a considerably higher concentration of jobcentres not only than the large cities in England but compared with most other large cities in Scotland. We have redesigned the estate to make sure that we can provide well for our client base, but from bigger jobcentres. There are a number of things we can do from larger jobcentres to help unemployed people that it is not so straightforward to do from smaller ones.

Alison Thewliss: Bridgeton jobcentre in my constituency will close and people will have to take two buses to get to Shettleston. Will the Minister give a commitment that not a single one of my constituents will be sanctioned for being late because they could not get there on time because of his cuts?

Damian Hinds: We expect people who are not in work to have the working week effectively available for their job-search activities, including visiting the jobcentre and, of course, applying for jobs. As I think the hon. Lady already knows, the rate of sanctions is down significantly. The vast majority of people do not get sanctioned every month, and we run a policy of having a reasonable approach. If people have a good reason for not being at an appointment, they will not be sanctioned.

Lesley Laird: The Department for Work and Pensions claims that the need for jobcentres is declining with the growth of online services, but in the constituency of Glasgow East, which has one of the highest claimant rates in  Scotland, at around 35%, many do not have access to the internet and 51% are not IT literate; yet the Government are still closing three jobcentres, one of which serves three homeless shelters. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of closures on service users, many of whom rely on face-to-face interaction with jobcentre staff?

Damian Hinds: We did of course make an assessment of the effect of the changes. Where the changes would involve people having to travel more than 3 miles or 20 minutes by public transport, we had a public consultation. [Interruption.] In one case, we changed the plan in the light of the consultation, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) well knows. We think it is right to move to larger jobcentres in which we can do more. They are better equipped and have computers to ensure that that facility is there, and there are specialists in the jobcentre who can help people with the computers and get through the problems of digital exclusion that the hon. Lady mentions.

Lesley Laird: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am afraid it is not very convincing or particularly reassuring. He knows full well that equality impact assessments have been conducted, as the Secretary of State for Scotland told me in response to my letter. The Secretary of State also said in his letter that if I wanted to access that equality information, I would have to make individual freedom of information requests for every single jobcentre. It is outrageous that the Government are covering up this vital information. They claim to value openness and transparency, but they refuse to publish information that should be freely available, no matter how much it shames them. I have in my hand an FOI request—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but I need a single sentence and a question mark at the end of it. There is a lot of pressure on time. I apologise to the hon. Lady, but she is taking far too long. She must be very quick.

Lesley Laird: The Minister has one more chance to publish the information. Otherwise, here is my FOI request.

Damian Hinds: The key point is that an equality impact assessment is not just a document; it is an entire way of thinking and working and it runs throughout these processes. I can confirm that we have been absolutely compliant with our duties under the Equality Act 2010, as we should be.

Brexit: Further Devolution

Patrick Grady: What his policy is on devolving further powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and if he will make a statement.

David Linden: What his policy is on devolving further powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and if he will make a statement.

Martyn Day: What his policy is on devolving further powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and if he will make a statement.

Gavin Newlands: What his policy is on devolving further powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and if he will make a statement.

David Mundell: We are in agreement with the devolved Administrations that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas but, as I have made it clear, we expect that there will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration.

Patrick Grady: We hear about this powers bonanza all the time, but the Prime Minister was unable to give us details on Monday, and it seems that the Secretary of State was unable to do so yesterday at the Scottish Affairs Committee. Let us give him another opportunity: can he name one power that will definitely come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit?

David Mundell: We hear repeatedly from the Scottish National Benches about engagement with the Scottish Government, and this engagement will be with the Scottish Government. That is where the discussions are going on in relation to the transfer of powers. I am absolutely certain that, at the end of this process, the Scottish Parliament will have more powers and responsibilities than it does right now.

David Linden: Among all the fluff of that answer, there was absolutely no substance. For a second time, may I ask the Secretary of State what new powers will be coming to Holyrood as a result of Brexit?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman will have seen a list of 111 powers and responsibilities—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Linden, you are a most over-excitable individual. Calm yourself. I understand your interest, but the question has been put—[Interruption.] Order. There is no need for excessive gesticulation. Whether or not you like the answer, Mr Linden, you must pay the Secretary of State the respect of hearing it, preferably with courtesy.

David Mundell: This is all about grandstanding; it is not about the substantive issue of ensuring a transfer of very significant powers from the 111 powers that were listed to the Scottish Parliament. I believe in devolution. I am committed to devolution and I want to see the maximum number of powers transferred. The Scottish National party does not believe in devolution.

Martyn Day: Can I, for the third time, ask the Secretary of State to name one power that is coming? If he is struggling for powers, may I suggest that he considers immigration, so that we can tackle things such as the skills immigration charge, which will be causing a skills shortage and damaging the economy in my constituency?

David Mundell: I can give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer on the last part of his question. Immigration is not being devolved to Scotland. The Smith commission process identified those areas of responsibility to be devolved, and immigration was not  one of them. The Scottish National party accepted that report and, on the basis of that, we implemented it in the Scotland Act 2016.

Gavin Newlands: I am disappointed that, after three questions, we still have not had an answer. On immigration, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State was disinclined to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). Perhaps he will listen to Nobel laureate Joe Stiglizt who, over the weekend, said that Scotland should have the powers to go its own way in migration policy. He knows a bit more about this than we do, so is he right?

David Mundell: I seem to remember that Professor Joe Stiglizt supported independence for Scotland, but the people of Scotland knew a bit more than the professor and decided to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Colin Clark: My right hon. Friend has been crystal clear that Brexit offers opportunities and powers. The SNP talks down Scotland, and specifically Aberdeenshire, the city that has managed to recover from the oil downturn. Why cannot it recognise that the new powers and EU withdrawal offers opportunities to Scotland, specifically to Aberdeenshire?

David Mundell: I am disappointed that the SNP is here in Westminster adopting this sort of pantomime approach to the very important issue of powers rather than engaging in a constructive way. Fortunately, it appears that the Scottish Government are adopting a more responsible approach, which is why there are substantial discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments.

Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the new inquiry on devolution and Brexit launched by the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs? As well as promoting discussion among the governments of the United Kingdom, we want to promote discussion among the parliamentarians in the four parliaments of the United Kingdom in order to resolve these very difficult issues.

David Mundell: I very much welcome the contribution to the debate of my hon. Friend’s Committee. Of course, it is very important that there is engagement across Parliaments, and I will be appearing before both the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee and the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament in the next couple of weeks.

Luke Graham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scotland’s trade with the UK is worth four times as much as its trade with the EU. Does he find it confusing, as my constituents and I do, that the SNP is quite happy for us to stay in one single market, but advocate Scotland leaving the greatest single market right here on its doorstep—the United Kingdom?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that some of the powers and responsibilities that come back from Brussels are subject to UK-wide frameworks so that we can continue to benefit from our internal market in the United Kingdom.

Ross Thomson: Leaving the EU will inherently make the Scottish Parliament more powerful as we take back control from Brussels. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP Government’s confused EU policy would simply see the new powers gained handed straight back to Brussels?

David Mundell: It is very important that the 500,000 yes supporters who voted to leave the European Union are absolutely clear that the SNP’s position is to take Scotland right back into the EU.

Paul Sweeney: We all know that the Tories have a dubious record on devolution. After all, they opposed the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. In stark contrast, the Labour party laid the foundations for the Scottish Parliament and will always act in its best interests. The Secretary of State says that the Scottish Parliament will get new powers eventually. Well, new powers require additional resources to deliver, so will he tell us how much more money the Scottish Parliament will obtain to fund these new powers? Will he also guarantee, unequivocally, that Brexit will not result in the Scottish Parliament’s budget being cut?

David Mundell: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of devolution. I have been in this Parliament to see through both the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Act 2016, which have seen a significant transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am determined that Brexit will see a further transfer of powers and responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament. Of course, it will need to be done in an orderly way, which will be the purpose of clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. We will work closely with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to ensure that that transfer of powers is orderly.

John Bercow: We need to speed up a little bit: a very pithy question, I am sure, from Mr Stephen Kerr.

Stephen Kerr: Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland’s two Governments—the UK Government and the Scottish Government—should work together in co-operation to get the best Brexit deal for the people of Scotland?

David Mundell: Yes.

John Bercow: Splendid.

Pete Wishart: The London School of Economics has said that a hard Tory Brexit will cost Scotland £30 billion, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that 80,000 jobs could go and a former Department for Exiting the European Union official has said that Scotland will be get the hardest impact. The Secretary of State said at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs yesterday that economic impact assessments are available for Scotland. Will he release them to the Scottish people so that they can examine them and know the full scale of this disastrous Tory Brexit?

David Mundell: It would not be Scotland questions if we did not hear from the doom-monger-in-chief. Let me be quite clear, as I was in my appearance before his Committee. Both Governments have carried out important  analysis, which they will share and discuss, but this Government—as Parliament has approved—will not be publishing anything that would be detrimental to our negotiating position.

Paul Masterton: In evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State suggested that a common framework should not be imposed on the devolved Administrations by the UK Government but should instead be the output of a collaborative process. Will he confirm that that is indeed the Government’s position?

David Mundell: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which gets to the heart of the issue—in marked contrast to the pantomime stuff we had earlier. I can absolutely confirm that. A UK framework does not mean the UK imposes a framework; it means agreement is reached between the UK Government and the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Tommy Sheppard: Four times the Secretary of State has been asked to name a single power that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and four times he has declined to answer. I see little point in asking him a fifth time, but let me ask him this: when will the Government publish a schedule setting out which powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and which will not? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) really should not walk across the line of sight.

Stephen Kinnock: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I am grateful for the apology. It was unfair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).

David Mundell: If the hon. Gentleman had not prefaced his question with those initial remarks, he would have asked a sensible question. I have set out that there is a dialogue ongoing with the Scottish Government in relation to the 111 powers. I set that out in much more detail at the Committee for which he was present yesterday, so I will not repeat what I said, but I am hopeful that, in early course, we will be able to publish exactly that sort of list.

Tommy Sheppard: The right hon. Gentleman’s refusal to name a single power, or even to set a timetable for saying when he will do so, can lead us to only one conclusion: that there are forces in his Government that do not want to see any powers devolved at all. How does that sit with his Department’s responsibility to protect the devolution settlement?

David Mundell: I have rarely heard such complete and utter nonsense. I will be judged by the Scotland Office’s record on devolution, and that means implementing the Calman commission in full, implementing the Scotland Act 2016 in full and taking forward the return of powers from Brussels, with a presumption of devolution. We will deliver, and the people of Scotland will see that we have.

Oil and Gas Industry

David Duguid: What steps the Government are taking to support the oil and gas industry in the north-east of Scotland.

Andrew Bowie: What steps the Government are taking to support the marine oil and gas industry in the north-east of Scotland.

David Mundell: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and Scottish Government Ministers on a wide range of issues, including fiscal policy across the UK, fisheries, and the oil and gas industry.

David Duguid: My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do the importance of the oil and gas industry in north-east Scotland. Considering the recent decision by the First Minister in Scotland to abolish the Energy Jobs Taskforce, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK Government remain fully committed to our North sea industries and will work with colleagues from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure the brightest future for the oil and gas industries in the north-east of Scotland?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I share his disappointment. Through challenging times, the broad shoulders of the UK Government have supported the oil and gas industry to the tune of £2.3 billion. We have invested in surveying the seabed, established a new independent regulator and invested in developing world-leading infrastructure, research and technology through the Aberdeen city deal. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: These are very important matters affecting the people of Scotland, and I think we ought to respect them by having some attention to our proceedings.

Andrew Bowie: I welcome the announcement last month of the Scottish Business Taskforce. Would my right hon. Friend like to expand on what its role will be with the oil, gas and sub-sea industries, which are predominately based around my constituency?

David Mundell: I recognise that my hon. Friend, although a new Member, has become a champion of the oil, gas and sub-sea industries. I can confirm today that the Scottish Business Taskforce, which was announced last month, will meet for the first time on Friday. The taskforce will provide expert advice and guidance on how best to support our most important sectors—not least oil, gas and sub-sea—and strengthen Scotland’s economy. I will be announcing its membership later today.

Ian Murray: It is difficult to see how we can support the oil and gas industry in Scotland when the Secretary of State refuses to release the assessment of the impact of Brexit on the Scottish economy. Will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Brexit was correct today at the Exiting the European Union Committee that that assessment has been shared with the Scottish Government? When will it be shared with the Scottish people?

David Mundell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not follow the Scottish Affairs Committee’s deliberations; he used to be a very prominent member of it. I made it very clear yesterday that there was a sharing of analysis, as is appropriate between Governments, but we will not be publishing anything that will be detrimental to our negotiations, and that is what the people of Scotland would want.

Christine Jardine: Given that, as we have heard, information has been shared with the Scottish Government, would it not be appropriate to make it public and perhaps to impress on the Scottish Government that they should also do that? The people of Scotland should see what the impact of Brexit is going to be in order to make a proper assessment of it.

David Mundell: We are regularly called on to respect the Scottish Government. I respect the Scottish Government and this Government respect the Scottish Government—that is why we are working with them on Brexit. But it would not be in the interests of Scotland or the United Kingdom to publish any information that would be detrimental to our negotiating position.

VAT

Ian Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on VAT exemptions.

David Mundell: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and Scottish Government Ministers on a wide range of issues, including fiscal policy across the UK.

Ian Lucas: Will the Secretary of State have a word with his very good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about VAT in Scotland to try to help clear up the mess created by the Scottish Government when they centralised police and fire services in Scotland, making them liable for VAT?

David Mundell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.

Borderlands Growth Deal

Alister Jack: What progress he has made on the borderlands growth deal initiative in Dumfries and Galloway.

David Mundell: Only last week I hosted a meeting with local MPs to review progress. I am pleased to report that we are driving forward the innovative, cross-border borderlands deal and hope to agree a deal next year that will see investment to transform the local economies within the borderlands area. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I want to hear the question and I want the people of Dumfries and Galloway to have the chance of hearing it.

Alister Jack: Hear, hear to that. Will my right hon. Friend commit to ensuring that local communities have the opportunity to feed their thoughts into what the final deal will look like?

David Mundell: I am sure that the people of Dumfries and Galloway will be absolutely delighted to hear what my hon. Friend says. I was very pleased to receive a submission from all five local authorities involved in the borderlands growth deal. I hope that we can now move forward with local communities being able to include their ideas and contributions in this process.

Alan Brown: rose—

John Bercow: I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is quite nearby.

Alan Brown: There is a risk that the Secretary of State is prioritising the borderland deal over the Ayrshire growth deal. In a simple written question, I asked how many meetings he has had on the borderland initiative, with who, and on what dates. His answer was that he has had numerous meetings. Will he answer the question directly, or otherwise I will report him to the Procedure Committee again?

David Mundell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman displays an unpleasant SNP trait of seeking to create division within Scotland. I want to see all areas of Scotland benefit from growth. At least the people of Ayrshire know that in their new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), they have a real champion of Ayrshire.

Brexit: Joint Ministerial Committee

Alex Sobel: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in the negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations provides a valuable forum for the UK Government and devolved Administrations to discuss exit issues. We held a very constructive meeting on 16 October and I hope to convene another meeting shortly.

Alex Sobel: It was agreed at the last JMCEU that common frameworks would be needed in certain areas. What update can the Secretary of State give the House on talks with Scottish Government Ministers on the establishment of common frameworks for progressing, and is he able to identify areas where the need for common frameworks is anticipated?

David Mundell: I gave very extensive evidence on this matter to the Scottish Affairs Committee yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to access the transcript.

Peter Grant: When the time comes for decisions to be taken about the fate of the 111 devolved powers coming back from Brussels, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that those decisions will be taken by consensus at the JMC rather than unilaterally by the UK Government?

David Mundell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), he would know that the position is that although there is a UK framework, the framework is agreed between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Danielle Rowley: What assessment he has made of the effect of the roll-out of universal credit on families in Scotland.

Damian Hinds: Families are benefiting from real, positive employment outcomes as people move into work faster and progress in work. Of course, and rightly, extra support is there for those who need it.

Danielle Rowley: Almost 2,000 universal credit claimants in my constituency, along with thousands more across Scotland, are stuck in limbo after seeing the vote in this place to pause the roll-out but no action from the Government. What is the Secretary of State doing to reassure and represent those people?

Damian Hinds: We will continue with the roll-out in a very careful and staged way. It is happening over nine years, and we continue in very active dialogue with Members across the House and people outside it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: We must hear the voice of Torbay.

Welfare Powers Devolution

Kevin Foster: What progress he has made on the transfer of welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2016.

Damian Hinds: We have made significant progress on the Scotland Act 2016 welfare powers. All DWP sections of the Act have been commenced, and we are working with the Scottish Government to support them in taking on these responsibilities, to ensure that the transition is safe and secure.

Kevin Foster: I am surprised to hear that only a small portion of the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Government are being used, given the complaints that we hear from some Members in this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of the Scottish National party griping rather than governing?

Damian Hinds: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the people of Scotland agree that it is of concern that we have no clear plan from the Scottish Government for how they will use many of the powers. This Government are focused on delivering for the people of Scotland. It is time for the SNP to stop ducking its responsibilities and use its considerable powers to do so as well.

PRIME MINISTER

THE PRIME MINISTER WAS ASKED—

Engagements

Afzal Khan: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 25 October.

Theresa May: I am sure that all Members from across the House will want to join me in wishing all the home nations teams the very best of luck in the rugby league world cup, which starts this week.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Afzal Khan: Social care services in England are in crisis. Since 2010, the local council in Manchester has had its annual social care budget cut by £32 million. By March, the Government will have taken £6.3 billion out of social care. Why will the Prime Minister not match Labour’s commitment and invest £8 billion in social care in next month’s Budget?

Theresa May: As I have said in this House before, we recognise the pressure on social care as our population ages. I have said before that there are short-term, medium-term and long-term answers to this. In the short term, we have made extra funding available to local authorities. The announcement made in the last Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was for an extra £2 billion for local authorities. In the medium term, we need to make sure that best practice is observed across all local authorities and NHS trusts. Delayed discharges are higher in some cases than they are in others, and we need to make sure that best practice is followed. In the long term, we need a sustainable footing for our social care system. That is why we will, in due course, be publishing a full and open consultation on ideas and proposals to ensure that we can have a sustainable social care system in the future.

Kevin Foster: The Prime Minister will be aware of the vital role that supported housing plays for many vulnerable people in Torbay. What reassurances can she give me about the ongoing support that the Government will give to those vital services?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and this is something that we have been looking at very closely over the past year since my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) commissioned work on it in September last year, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary. I can confirm that we will be publishing our response to that consultation on Tuesday 31 October, and it will look at a wide range of issues. We need to ensure that the funding model is right so that all providers of supported housing can access funding effectively. We need to look at issues such as the recent significant increases in service charges, making sure that we are looking at cost control in the sector.
I can also say today that as part of our response to the review, we will not be applying the local housing allowance cap to supported housing; indeed, we will not be implementing it in the wider social rented sector. The full details will be made available when we publish our response to the consultation.

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister in wishing the rugby league team all the very best in the competition. I hope they win it.
Last week, the House voted 299 to zero to pause the roll-out of universal credit. Will the Prime Minister respect the will of the House?

Theresa May: As I have said before, we acknowledge the fact that people have raised concerns with universal credit. That is why, as we have been rolling it out, we have been listening to those and changes have been made. Perhaps I could just update the House on where we are on the roll-out of universal credit. Currently, of people claiming benefits, 8% are on universal credit. By January of next year, that will rise to 10%. The roll-out is being conducted in three phases, and the intention is that it will be completed by 2022, so it is being done in a measured way, and I am pleased to say that four out of five people are satisfied or very satisfied with the service that they are receiving. Universal credit helps people into the workplace and it makes sure that work pays, and that is what the welfare system should do.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would have thought that if only 8% of the roll-out has taken place and 20% of the people in receipt of it are dissatisfied with it, that is a cause for thought and maybe a pause in the whole process. Last week, only one Conservative MP had the courage of their convictions to vote with us on suspending the universal credit roll-out. Then a Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly, Angela Burns, said:
“For the life of me I cannot understand why a 6 or 4 week gap is deemed acceptable.”
She called universal credit
“callous at best and downright cruel at worst”,
and concluded by saying she is “ashamed” of her Government. Can the Prime Minister ease her colleague’s shame by pausing and fixing universal credit?

Theresa May: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have been making changes to the implementation of UC as it has gone through the roll-out, but let us be very clear about why we introduced universal credit. It is because it is a system—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Members are getting rather over-excited. The question has been put, and the answer will be heard.

Theresa May: We introduced universal credit as a simpler, more straightforward system that ensures that work pays and helps people into the workplace. Let us look at what happened in the benefits system under Labour. Under Labour, the low-paid paid tax and then had it paid back to them in benefits. Under Labour, people were trapped in a life on benefits for years. Under Labour, the number of workless households doubled, and Labour’s benefit system cost households  an extra £3,000 a year. What the Conservatives have done is given the low-paid a pay rise, given the workers a tax cut and ensured we have a benefit system that helps people into work.

Jeremy Corbyn: Under Labour, 1 million children were lifted out of poverty. Under Labour, we introduced the principle of the national minimum wage—opposed by all Tories over there.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to listen to Angela Burns, perhaps she could listen to the architect of universal credit, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who said:
“One of the reasons I resigned from Government was I didn’t actually agree with the additional waiting days. This is something the government needs to look at”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Theresa May: This is the answer that I have given not just three or four times in this PMQs but in previous PMQs: as we look at universal credit roll-out, we look at how we are introducing it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about what happened under Labour, and I am happy to talk about what happened under Labour—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is far too much noise and finger pointing on both sides of the Chamber. The responses from the Prime Minister will be heard, as will the questions from the Leader of the Opposition and every other Member without fear or favour.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about rolling out new benefit systems, but let us think about what happened when Labour rushed to introduce tax credits. I was not the only Member of Parliament who had people in my constituency surgery who had filled the forms in properly and given information to the authorities only for the Government to come back years later and land them with bills for thousands of pounds. That is what happens when you rush into a system rather than introducing it properly, as we are.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thought that we had passed a threshold last week and that the Prime Minister was going to answer questions, but we obviously have not achieved that yet. Labour introduced working tax credits to help people on low pay out of poverty and it made a very big difference. The sad truth is that universal credit is in such a mess that councils are forced to pick up the Bill. Let me give an example. Croydon Council, which piloted the scheme, is now spending £3 million of its own budget to prevent tenants from being evicted due to rent arrears caused by universal credit. Does the Prime Minister think that it is right or fair that hard-pressed local authorities, having their budget cut by central Government, should have to dip into what little money they have left to prevent people from being evicted when they know full well that it is this Government and their system of universal credit that are causing the problem?

Theresa May: Labour introduced working tax credits and then clawed thousands of pounds back from people who were working hard. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of rent arrears and I know that Members have concerns about people who are managing their budgets to pay their rent. For the vast majority of  people on universal credit, managing their budgets is not an issue. After four months, the number of people on universal credit who are in arrears has fallen by a third, but we recognise the issue so we are working with landlords. We have built flexibility into the system so that landlords can be paid directly, and I want to be clear that nobody can be legally evicted from social housing because of short-term rent arrears. That is an important point for us to get across to people, but I come back to the essential point about universal credit: this is about a welfare system that helps people into work, makes work pay and does not trap people in a life on benefits for years.

Jeremy Corbyn: I note that the Prime Minister could not say anything about people being evicted from the private rented sector because of universal credit problems. The costs in the benefit system are being driven by low pay and high rents. In 2015, the then Chancellor, her former friend, promised a £9 an hour living wage. However, in the March Budget it was sneaked out that the Government’s minimum wage would reach only £8.75. The welfare state was not created to subsidise low paying employers and overcharging landlords, so will the Budget in November put the onus back—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Hoare, I expect better of you. You were much better behaved when you were at Oxford University—what has happened to you, man? Calm yourself.

Jeremy Corbyn: My question is this: will the Budget in November put the onus back on to employers to pay a decent wage so that workers can make ends meet?

Theresa May: Of course we want to ensure that there are higher-paid jobs in this country. That is precisely why we are investing in the economy for the future. It is precisely why we are investing in our infrastructure and investing in skills for young people, and it is why we are introducing a modern industrial strategy. The right hon. Gentleman says the welfare system was not created to subsidise employers who are paying low wages. That is exactly what Labour’s working tax credits system did.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission reported that low pay was endemic in the United Kingdom. One in four workers are permanently stuck in low-paid jobs. That is why Labour backed a real living wage of £10 per hour to make work pay. The Government do not really know whether they are coming or going. The Conservative party and the Government say they have full confidence in universal credit, but will not vote for it. They say they will end the NHS pay cap, but will not allocate any money to pay for it. The Communities Secretary backs £50 billion of borrowing for housing, but the Chancellor says it is not policy. The Brexit Secretary says they are planning for a no-deal Brexit. The Chancellor says they are not. Is it not the case that the Government are weak, incompetent, divided and unable to take a decision—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I said that the responses from the Prime Minister would be heard and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman will be heard. You can try to shout him down and other Members can try to shout the Prime Minister down. It will not work. End of.

Jeremy Corbyn: Isn’t it the case that this Government are weak, incompetent and divided, and unable to take the essential decisions necessary for the good of the people of this country?

Theresa May: Of course we want to see people earning higher wages. Of course we want, as we are doing, to be able to ensure we can invest in our public services. But the way to do that—the way to have a higher standard of living, to have higher wages, to invest in our public services, to have a better future for people in this country—is to build and continue to build that stronger economy. You do not build a stronger economy by losing control of public finances. You do not build a stronger economy by uncontrolled borrowing. You do not build a stronger economy by hitting people with the highest taxes in our peacetime history. You do not build a stronger economy by voting against progress in our Brexit negotiations. You do not build a stronger economy by planning for capital flight and a run on the pound. That is what Labour would do and we will never let it happen.

Sheryll Murray: Some people in Plymouth are campaigning, by way of a petition, to say that lifeboats must be launched immediately when a fishing vessel is overdue. I believe this is irresponsible and puts our valiant lifeboat crews in peril if they do not know where they are going. We know this in Cornwall. Will the Prime Minister look at making safety grants available, so that all fishing boats can have an AIS, or automatic identification system, locator beacon on board? This would cost well under £4 million, even if every registered fishing vessel under 15 metres got a grant to cover the whole cost. My late husband had one aboard his boat.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. As she has just said, I know this is an area where she tragically has personal experience. I would like to commend her for the work she has done in this important area and for championing these causes. She is right: launching a lifeboat whenever a fishing vessel is overdue may be the wrong decision. It could, as she says, be dangerous for the crew involved. That is why the coastguard takes the time to gather valuable information before deciding how best to respond. On the issue she raises, a number of grants are available from various safety schemes. I encourage all those involved in fishing to make the most of the grants that are available.

Ian Blackford: Does the Prime Minister agree that migration is key to delivering sustainable economic growth?

Theresa May: What is absolutely key is ensuring we have controlled migration in this country. That is what the people of this country want and what the Government are delivering.

Ian Blackford: An American couple, the Felbers, moved to Scotland and invested £400,000 to run an award-winning guesthouse in Inverness. They contribute to their community and the local economy, yet they will be deported because of a retrospective change to Home Office rules. Will the Prime Minister meet me and their  MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), to discuss this case and the systemic problems with UK migration?

Theresa May: There are no systemic problems with UK migration. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the case he has raised, but it is absolutely right that the Home Office work to ensure that the immigration rules are properly applied and that action is taken according to those rules.

John Bercow: Now it is time to hear Mr Simon Hoare.

Simon Hoare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have composed myself.

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our job is to get the best Brexit deal for Britain. I believe we can get it and that it will benefit all parts of the UK, including his constituents, and that we will maximise the benefits of leaving the UK while maintaining the greatest possible access to EU markets. That is what we are continuing to work on and the vision I set out in my Florence speech, and as we know, the EU is now preparing its response.

Jo Platt: The Prime Minister has previously stated her commitment to apprenticeships. In my constituency, however, the apprenticeship levy has not been helping those for whom it was designed. What steps will she take to ensure that apprenticeships help those from lower-income backgrounds?

Theresa May: Apprenticeships are important. Under the Government from 2010 to 2015, we saw 2 million more apprenticeships created, and we are committed to a further 1.9 million being created. This is important. The important point about apprenticeships is that they are an opportunity for young people not to feel encouraged down an academic route when that does not work for them. When I meet apprentices, many say that it is the best thing they have done, and we want to make sure they are available for all those who could benefit from it.

Victoria Prentis: Cherwell tops the leader board for new housing. Will the Prime Minister assure me that the right roads, school places, post boxes and especially healthcare provision will be in place to support both my new constituents and the ones I have at the moment?

Theresa May: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend and say how pleased I am that Cherwell District Council is doing what we want to do and what we recognise we need to do to tackle our dysfunctional housing market, which is to build more homes? She is right, however, that infrastructure is also an important part of that, which is why we have committed £15 billion  for our road investment strategy, why over half a trillion pounds will be spent on the NHS during this Parliament, and why a record £41 billion will be spent on core funding for schools this year. That, I am pleased to say, is the record of Conservatives in government.

Stewart Hosie: In 24 hours, the people of Dundee will wave off the bid for the 2023 European Capital of Culture. It is a fantastic bid that will generate 1,500 jobs and add 5% to local GDP. Will the Prime Minister, notwithstanding her current difficulties with Europe, back this bid, given that it comes from the most innovative and forward-looking city in the whole UK?

Theresa May: Of course we are always willing to back bids from any city in the United Kingdom to become the European city of culture. I welcome the fact that Dundee has put forward a bid and is part of the process, but, as I have said, we want to support all cities in the United Kingdom that are submitting bids.

Richard Graham: It is a criminal offence for those, such as teachers, who are in a position of trust to have sexual relationships with young people under 18. However, a constituent came to me recently distressed about exactly such a relationship between his 17-year-old daughter and a middle-aged driving instructor. While—if consensual—that is not illegal, I am concerned about the possibility that young drivers might be at risk of being groomed by predatory instructors. Does the Prime Minister agree that driving instructors are, by the nature of their work, in a position of trust, and should be covered by the same rules as teachers? If so, will she ask the relevant Minister to work with me on the issue?

Theresa May: I am concerned to hear about the constituency case that my hon. Friend has raised. I recognise the position, and the role that driving instructors play. I will ask the appropriate Department to look into the matter, and to get in touch with my hon. Friend to obtain further details of that case.

Stephen Kinnock: In March 2017, the Prime Minister told the House that Parliament would be given a meaningful vote on the terms of the Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill. This morning, in the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, the Secretary of State told us that that vote might not take place until March 2019. Will the Prime Minister please explain how it is possible to have a meaningful vote on something that has already taken place?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in negotiations with the European Union. The timetable under the Lisbon treaty allows the negotiations to take place until March 2019, but, because it is in the interests of both sides, and it is not just this Parliament that wants to have a vote on the deal—there will be ratification by other Parliaments—I am confident that we will be able to achieve that agreement and that negotiation in time for Parliament to have the vote to which we committed ourselves.

Robert Jenrick: We enter a week of commemorations of the centenary of the Balfour declaration. Will my right hon. Friend re-dedicate us to the pursuit of peace and justice for both the Israelis and  the Palestinians, but will she also celebrate with pride our small national contribution to the creation of a democracy in the middle east, a sanctuary for those who have suffered from anti-Semitism and fear its rise again, and, in the state of Israel, a true friend of the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: We are proud of the role that we played in the creation of the state of Israel, and we will certainly mark the centenary with pride. I am pleased about the good trade and other relationships that we have with Israel, which we are building on and enhancing. However, we must also be conscious of the sensitivities that some people have about the Balfour declaration.
We recognise that there is more work to be done. We remain committed to the two-state solution in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, which is an important aim. I think it important for us all to recommit ourselves to ensuring that we can provide security, stability and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through such a lasting peace.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Trying to get a decision on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is becoming like groundhog day. Swansea is ready, and the investors are ready. May I ask the Prime Minister when she will be ready?

Theresa May: As the hon. Lady well knows, that raises a number of complex issues. We were grateful to Charles Hendry for his review. The relevant Department —the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—is still considering his report, and we will respond in due course.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Does the Prime Minister agree that as we leave the EU and take control of our land management policy, our manifesto commitment to plant 11 million trees is a critical part of the holistic countryside management framework that we can now build to ensure long-term home-grown wood for our housing industry, as well as increasing our natural carbon capture potential and reducing flood risks?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we did commit in our manifesto to plant 11 million trees. We are putting that at the heart of our work to protect the environment for future generations. I am pleased to say that since April 2015 we have planted just over 2 million trees, but we do have much more to do, and we will be continuing to work with landowners and stakeholders on this issue. My hon. Friend is also right that it is not just about the look of the countryside; it is also about the role that trees play in reducing flood risks and helping to hold carbon dioxide.

Kevan Jones: The Prime Minister has spoken on mental health, and I thank her for that. When she was Home Secretary, she outlawed police cells being used for those in mental health crisis. Today, however, parts of our mental health system are in crisis. In my North Durham constituency children, young people and families are waiting two years for autism assessments. The Secretary of State agrees that that is unacceptable. What is the Prime Minister going to do to turn her well-intentioned statements on mental health into action?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking a number of courses of action in relation to mental health, but he raises the specific issue of the autism diagnosis, and the length of time that takes in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has promised to look into this and will be doing so, because we are very clear that we want to ensure that adults and children should not have to face too long a wait for an autism diagnosis. The Department of Health is working with partners to help local areas address these issues where there are long waiting times for an autism diagnosis, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published clinical guidance which sets out that assessments should begin within three months of referral. Obviously it is for the Department of Health to be working with those local areas to make sure it is possible to achieve that.

Steve Double: Tomorrow at Cornwall Newquay airport the Bloodhound will carry out its first live test run in the next step on its quest to achieve the land speed record. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing the whole Bloodhound team, especially driver Andy Green, a successful test run, and does she agree that such projects show that the UK continues to lead the world in innovation in science and engineering?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing the Bloodhound team well; indeed, I have met some of the members of the team in the past. I also agree with my hon. Friend’s other point: this continues to show what a world leader in science and innovation the United Kingdom is. We have some of the world’s best universities, with four of them in the world’s top 10, and we have more Nobel prize winners than any country other than the United States. This is a record of which our country can be proud, and I am sure we will all be proud of the Bloodhound team and its achievements.

Thelma Walker: Does the Prime Minister agree that the potential downgrading of Huddersfield Royal Infirmary— 479 professionals lost, over 300 hospital beds cut, and a 90-minute journey to the nearest A&E—is not in the best interests of my constituents? Will she meet me to discuss the detrimental impact this will have on Colne Valley and the surrounding area?

Theresa May: The principle that we want to base all these decisions on is that service changes should be based on clear evidence and led by local clinicians who best understand the local healthcare needs. I understand that Calderdale and Kirklees Councils have referred the proposed changes to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, and I know he will be considering the issues very carefully, and will be coming to a decision in due course.

Nicky Morgan: Next year is the centenary of the first woman Member of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what leadership and encouragement to the women and girls in his constituency to take part in public life the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O'Mara) has shown in his remarks?

Theresa May: It is important that we mark this centenary next year, and recognise the role that women have played in this House and in public life. I want young women and women to be able to see this House as a place they actively want to come to—that they want to contribute to their society and respond to the needs of constituents and make a real difference to people’s lives. That is what I am in it for, that is why I have encouraged more women to come into this House, and I am pleased to say that we have more women on our Benches than ever before.
Finally, all of us in this House should have due care and attention to the way in which we refer to other people and should show women in public life the respect they deserve.

Tommy Sheppard: Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament voted by 91 votes  to 28 to ban fracking in Scotland. May I ask the Prime Minister why she would not consider following Scotland’s lead and introduce a moratorium in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to carry out a full evaluation of the health and environmental consequences of this controversial technology, and in order for the public to be consulted?

Theresa May: This is an issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I are simply going to disagree. I think that shale gas has the potential to power economic growth in this country and to support thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industries and in other sectors. It will provide a new domestic energy source. We have more than 50 years’ drilling experience in the UK, and one of the best records in the world for economic development while protecting our environment. The shale wealth fund is going to provide up to £1 billion of additional resources to local communities, and local councils are going to be able to retain 100% of the business rates they collect from shale gas developments. We will be bringing forward further proposals in relation to this during this Parliament. This is an important potential new source of energy, and it is right that we should use it and take the benefits from it for our economy, for jobs and for people’s futures.

Craig Tracey: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the terrifying incident on Sunday in which a gunman held hostages at a bowling alley in my neighbouring constituency of Nuneaton, a facility that is enjoyed by my own constituents of North Warwickshire and Bedworth. Will she join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) in praising the excellent work of Warwickshire police and the West Midlands ambulance service in ensuring that the situation was brought to a swift conclusion without any casualties?

Theresa May: Of course we were all concerned to hear about that incident as it was taking place, and I am happy to join my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton in commending the professionalism and bravery of the Warwickshire police in bringing it to a swift conclusion and of the ambulance service in ensuring that there were no injuries. Our emergency services do an amazing job in protecting us; they do not know, when they put on their uniforms in the morning, whether they are going to be called out to  exactly this sort of incident. I was pleased to welcome a number of our emergency services personnel to a reception in Downing Street on Monday. What they always say is that they are just doing their job, but my goodness me, what a job they do for us!

Alison McGovern: On 29 March, I asked the Prime Minister whether she would help the people of New Ferry after the huge explosion that had devastated the town centre. She said that she was be happy to help and that support would be offered to the community in the future. Two weeks later she called a general election, and her Government seem to have all but forgotten about the people in New Ferry. Well, she may have forgotten but my constituents have not, so I ask her again: precisely when will her Government put their hands in their pockets so that the people in New Ferry can rebuild their town and their lives?

Theresa May: The Government have not forgotten about this issue. I understand from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that we are waiting for the local council to produce proposals and a business case for those proposals, and we will of course look at those proposals seriously.

John Howell: In acknowledging the hard work that the men and women of RAF Benson in my constituency did in the Caribbean, will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that the Puma Mk 2 helicopter was ready and available for work in the Caribbean within a couple of hours of having arrived there?

Theresa May: I am very happy to commend the work of all those at RAF Benson and indeed all those in our military and the volunteers who were able to provide support after the devastating hurricanes that took place in the Caribbean. I am also happy to agree with my hon. Friend that, contrary to some of the stories that were being put about, we were there, we were there on time and we were able to act very quickly to give people that support.

Joanna Cherry: We can all agree that no one should ever be persecuted on account of their sexuality. Last week at the  awards, the Prime Minister said that we had come a long way on LGBT+ rights, but there is still much more to do. May I ask her to start on that remaining work today by promising that the Home Office will never again deport LGBT+ asylum seekers to countries where they are likely to be persecuted with the instruction that they pretend to be straight?

Theresa May: This is an issue that we take seriously. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that it was a Conservative Government that actually changed the rules on asylum seeking to introduce the category of those who could face persecution in their country of origin because of their sexuality. I am pleased that that was able to be done, and I am sure that the Home Office treats all these cases—I want to them to treat all these cases—with the sensitivity that is appropriate.

Luke Graham: As of 2016, 17% of premises in Scotland were without superfast broadband, compared with just 11% for the UK as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend join me in  calling on the Scottish Government to do more and to engage constructively with Departments here in Westminster to deliver this crucial service to communities in Scotland?

Theresa May: Can I say to—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. All sorts of very curious hand and finger gestures are being deployed, each trying to outdo the other in terms of eccentricity and, possibly, of prowess, but I am interested in hearing the Prime Minister’s reply.

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend that we all recognise the importance of broadband and of fast broadband being available to people in our constituencies. He is absolutely right—the Members of the Scottish National party come down here and spend a lot of time talking about powers for the Scottish Government, but actually it is time that the Scottish Government got on with using their powers for the benefit of the people in Scotland.

Mark Hendrick: In the past fortnight, we have heard the announcement of the loss of many hundreds of jobs in Lancashire at BAE Systems sites at Warton and Samlesbury, which comes as a hammer blow to workers and their families. Today, I want to raise the proposed closure of the Alstom factory on Strand Road in Preston, which will mean the loss of another 180 jobs. We keep hearing hype about the so-called northern powerhouse, so why are aerospace companies and train manufacturers in the north shedding jobs by the hundred?

Theresa May: I recognise that this is a worrying time for the workers involved. We will obviously ensure through the Department for Work and Pensions that they have the support they need to look for new jobs, and that does include the rapid response service, which gives particular support to people in these areas. However, in relation to the decision by BAE Systems, for example, I can assure the House that we will continue to promote our world-leading defence industry, and I hope that all Labour Members will continue to promote our world-leading defence industry. I am very pleased that just last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence signed a statement of intent with Qatar, committing it to the purchase of 24 Typhoons and six Hawks from BAE. Last year, the Ministry of Defence spent £3.7 billion with BAE and is working with it to maximise export opportunities for Typhoons and Hawks in the future to ensure that we can retain jobs here in the United Kingdom.

Bob Blackman: When it comes to tackling homelessness, prevention is better than cure, so I am delighted that the Government backed my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. However, one of the obstacles for people who choose to rent is putting together the deposit and getting help with the rent. Will my right hon. Friend look at a scheme that would provide 32,000 people a year with the opportunity to rent for an investment of £3.1 million a year? Not only would it do that, but it would save the public purse up to £1.8 billion over a three-year period.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. He has long campaigned on homelessness and its prevention, and I am pleased that we were able to support his Homelessness Reduction Act, which will be an important  contribution in this particular area. On his specific issue, he has made a pre-Budget representation to the Chancellor, who I am sure will be looking at it very carefully. On the more general issue of helping people to buy and helping them with deposits, I am of course pleased that we have been able to announce an extra £10 billion for our Help to Buy scheme, which does make a real difference to people and enables them to get into homes.

Nigel Dodds: The workforce, the unions and the management at Bombardier in Belfast deserve enormous credit for the way in which they have responded to the threats to their jobs and livelihoods coming from the United States, and from Boeing in particular. Can the Prime Minister assure us that she will continue building on the good work that has already happened through herself, the Secretary of State for  Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and that she will continue to work with us, the unions and management to ensure that the threat of tariffs is removed, that the C series is a success story and that thousands of jobs in Belfast and across the United Kingdom are protected?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give that commitment. A lot of work has been done in relation to this issue by me, the Business Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers with our opposite numbers in America and Canada. We will certainly continue that work. Obviously, the most recent announcement in relation to Airbus and the C series is important. We want to ensure that those jobs stay in Northern Ireland, because we recognise the importance of those jobs to the economy of Northern Ireland and, obviously, also to the people and their families.

POINTS OF ORDER

Chuka Umunna: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the Committee of the whole House on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill on 7 February 2017.

John Bercow: It was a Tuesday.

Chuka Umunna: Yes, it was a Tuesday. Very well remembered.
The then Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), gave a commitment in this House that this House of Commons would have a vote on the arrangements for our withdrawal from the European Union before our exit. He said,
“we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 264.]
He went on to say:
“It will be a meaningful vote. As I have said, it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 273.]
This morning the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union that the vote, which the then Minister committed to happening before we leave, could actually happen after we leave the European Union. As such, that is in clear breach of the commitment given by his own Minister that
“it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not.”
Obviously we will not have that choice if we have already left the European Union by the time of a vote. It seems to me that this House, on behalf of the people we represent, cannot take back control unless we have that vote.
Mr Speaker, can you advise on what we, as a House of Commons, can do about the, at best, contradiction or, at worst, false impression given to the House during the debate on 7 February?

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Peter Bone: rose—

John Bercow: Oh, very well.

Peter Bone: We were there.

John Bercow: They were there, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) chunters from a half-sedentary position. We will come to him in a moment. I am saving him up; it would be a pity to waste him too early in our proceedings.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was indeed present at the Committee this morning, and I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said and the questions that were put to him. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has misunderstood the situation. The question the Secretary  of State had was whether or not he thought there would be an agreement before midnight on 29 March 2019 and he indicated that he thought it might be reached a nanosecond before midnight on that day. He was then asked whether that meant this House would not be able to vote on such an agreement until after 29 March, and he said that obviously it will not be able to vote on an agreement until after 29 March if there has not been an agreement until 29 March. That was the point he was making, and it was a perfectly sensible one.

John Bercow: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing a bit of extra information to me, which, in one form or another, he has been doing for over 30 years. I am greatly obliged to him.

Peter Bone: rose—

Pat McFadden: rose—

John Bercow: I do not think that at this point we need the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, and I will come to the former Europe Minister, but what I would say to the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) is that, put very simply, what he is seeking is an assurance that there will be a vote on a final deal before Brexit happens—if I understand him correctly, that is what he is asking. What I would say to him is that these are matters of political debate. He quoted a very clear commitment from several months ago. Different interpretations have been placed upon proceedings in a Committee this morning, but the hon. Gentleman, beyond advertising—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—his considerable irritation with what he heard this morning, is presumably keen to ensure that he gets what he thinks he was promised. He is also, presumably, keen to get my advice on how to go about it, and the answer to that is: there will be a great many debates on European matters in this Chamber, not only in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but on many other occasions. I absolutely anticipate that the hon. Gentleman and others will be making the same points repeatedly. That also is not pejorative. As I often say, repetition is not an unknown or rare phenomenon in the House of Commons; people have a point and they tend to return to it again and again and again, almost, if you will, in the spirit of campaigning, and that is perfectly proper. So there will be lots of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman, here in Parliament and doubtless outside as well, to press his case with the intellect and eloquence he has brought to bear on our proceedings over the past seven years. I keenly anticipate his contributions from one side of the argument and those of the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough, to name but two, on the other.

Pat McFadden: rose—

John Bercow: I would feel the sequence was incomplete unless we heard from the former Europe Minister.

Pat McFadden: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not actually the former Europe Minister, but I am grateful to you for calling me. I was at the evidence session this morning and I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said. He said that Parliament would not be likely to get a vote on the future arrangements with the European Union until  after March 2019. That makes a material and significant difference to this House’s ability to have a meaningful input and a meaningful say on the content of those negotiations. So at the risk of repetition, following on from what my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) have said, I ask your advice on what this House can do to make sure it has a meaningful say and input on these most important of negotiations, rather than being used as an after-the-fact rubber stamp.

Seema Malhotra: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As somebody who was also in attendance at the Select Committee meeting—indeed, I was the person who asked the question of the Secretary of State—my understanding is that which has been reflected by my Labour colleagues. If the Government had changed their position on something of such constitutional significance, would it not be in order that that change should be brought before this House in a ministerial statement?

Sammy Wilson: rose—

John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman’s point of order on some other matter?

Sammy Wilson: On this matter—

John Bercow: Very well. We must hear the voice of Mr Sammy Wilson.

Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that different members of the Committee heard different things from the Secretary of State this morning, so would it not be better to wait until the record of the meeting has been published, as then it will be clear what the Secretary of State did say? I did not hear what these Members have alleged they have heard.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know he always likes to be helpful to the Chair and to the House. He anticipates me, but he is right in doing so. There will be a transcript of the proceedings, and I rather imagine that, in conformity with the usual practice of the House and of our distinguished Committees, it will be published sooner rather than later. I know it will then be subject to the beady eyes of colleagues on both sides of the Chamber and on both sides, if I may put it that way, of the Brexit argument. They will read into  it what they wish and pursue their cause as they choose.
What I would say to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) is that if there is a material change in Government policy or intended practice on a very significant matter, it is customary that there should be a statement to the House. It would not always be an oral statement, but it might very well be an oral statement. The House knows very well that there are means by which to secure the attendance in the Chamber of a Minister if such a statement is not proffered. The position of the Chair is that the Chair does not seek to take sides on this matter. The Chair simply seeks to facilitate the expression of opinion. I would add that in addition to all the other debates we might have on these matters, there will in due course be legislation returning to the House, and it is a matter of public record that  very large numbers of amendments have been tabled to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. At the Committee stage, the Chairman of Ways and Means will make a proper and judicious selection, based upon advice but deploying his own judgment, and at Report stage that responsibility will fall to me. I think Members know that I always will the fullest possible debate on the widest range of issues pertinent to a Bill, and so both sides of the argument can always feel that they have a friend in the Chair.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you recall what you were doing six years ago today. I suggest you were recovering from a mammoth session in the Chair, following a Backbench Business Committee debate, in prime time, when 81 Conservative Members declined to accept the advice of their Whips and voted for a referendum on the European Union. How could we mark that event, sir? Does it not show that Backbench Business motions do have an effect on Government policy?

John Bercow: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is right on a matter of parliamentary history and precedent. I well recall that debate. It was a very significant debate, and I am going to vouchsafe to the hon. Gentleman something he probably did not know—he might not even want to know, but he is going to know. I regularly refer to that debate, together with the debate on Hillsborough and a number of others, as an example of a very significant debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee—it was significant not just because of the quality of the debate, but because it had an impact on public policy. These references are in speeches that I make at universities and in front of other forums around the country, most recently at the invitation of the Hansard Society. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman is such a sad anorak that he wishes to attend to all of my speeches on these occasions, but I am giving him the highlight.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise another issue of public policy: the contaminated blood scandal. What with “Sky News” today running a story about what appears to be a 1987 Cabinet cover-up related to the contaminated blood scandal, and with the consultation for the public inquiry having ended last week, have you, Sir, had any indication of when the Government are going to come to the House to make a statement about when that public inquiry will be set up? They promised that it would be done in a speedy manner.

John Bercow: I have received no such indication, but if memory serves me correctly, the hon. Lady has raised this matter in the House many times, including on an urgent basis. I seem to recall that she did so at the tail end of the 2010-15 Parliament and has done so on several other occasions since. Like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the hon. Lady is a most versatile, experienced and dextrous parliamentarian,  and she knows the opportunities that are open to her. I have a hunch that she is going to try to take advantage of them.
If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has been so patiently waiting.

LIVE ANIMAL EXPORTS (PROHIBITION)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the export of live farmed animals for slaughter or fattening; and for connected purposes.
The export of live farm animals can cause immense and unnecessary suffering to many of the animals involved. There is evidence that public concern on this issue dates back as far as the 1950s, and even further in the case of the export of horses. I am sure that many Members present will remember the mass protests that featured on our TV screens during the 1990s.
The objection to the live export of animals for slaughter is essentially twofold. First, some countries in Europe have far weaker animal welfare rules than we have. Secondly, there is a real risk that the rules on the transport and slaughter of animals that are supposed to apply throughout the European Union will not be enforced effectively once the animals leave our shores.
Figures from the Animal and Plant Health Agency show that every year around 40,000 sheep are exported from Britain for slaughter on the continent. The long journeys are stressful for the animals, and in some cases they result in suffering caused by overcrowding, high summer temperatures and animals sustaining injuries en route.
Many of those 40,000 sheep are sent to France. Regular film reports by the organisation L214 have revealed inhumane and illegal slaughter practices in French slaughterhouses. In one shocking case, a slaughterman is seen stabbing a knife into the eye of a conscious sheep. A 2016 report by a French Assemblée Nationale committee of inquiry confirmed that there are serious welfare problems in French abattoirs. In my view, and in the view of many of my constituents, it is not acceptable for the UK to send animals to die in such horrendous conditions.
Around 20,000 calves were exported from Northern Ireland to Spain in 2016, and 3,000 were exported from Scotland to Spain. On the Scotland exports, the animals are first shipped to Northern Ireland and then taken by road to the Republic of Ireland, from where they are sent on a 20-hour sea journey to northern France. Finally, they are driven all the way through France to Spain.
Scientific research indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with such lengthy journeys. Their immune systems are not fully developed and their bodies’ capacity to control their internal temperature is limited, making them particularly susceptible to both heat and cold stress. Morbidity and mortality following transport can therefore be high. Once they are in Spain, it is entirely permissible for calves to be reared in barren conditions without bedding. Keeping animals in such conditions would be illegal in the United Kingdom, where we apply tougher rules than the EU minimum.
The Bill is drafted to cover all parts of the UK. Animal welfare is devolved, but exports are a trade issue and therefore a reserved matter. Although the Bill would cover and ban exports for either slaughter or  fattening, it would not prohibit the export of animals for breeding. Because of their higher value, breeding animals are generally transported in better conditions, so their transport does not give rise to the same animal welfare concerns.
Because the Bill deals only with exports, it would not prevent the transport of animals from the Scottish islands to the mainland. It also includes an exception to allow the cross-border export of live animals from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to continue. That is essentially a local trade and I have seen no evidence to indicate that journeys are excessively long. Nevertheless, the exception is framed to try to ensure that the Republic of Ireland could not be used as a back-door route for continued live exports from the UK to mainland Europe.
The fear has been expressed that were a ban to be introduced, there would be a risk of challenge under the rules of the World Trade Organisation, but WTO rules provide for certain clear exceptions to their general prohibition on trade restrictions, one of which covers public morals. The WTO appellate body has ruled that it is possible for animal welfare matters to fall within the public morals exception. For example, the United States ban on the import of cat and dog fur and the EU ban on seal fur remain in place, despite both being members of the WTO.
There are therefore good grounds to believe that the UK would be able to defend a WTO challenge, were one to be made, by showing that the export ban proposed in the Bill would be a proportionate response to the deeply held concerns of many members of the UK public, with strong opposition to live exports dating back around half a century. Indeed, only recently the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals delivered to the European Commission a petition with more than 1 million signatures, expressing grave concern about the suffering caused by the poor enforcement of rules on the long-distance transport of animals. Signatures came from many countries throughout Europe.
Over the years, there have been repeated calls for this harsh trade to be brought to an end—I first got involved in the issue some 18 years ago, when I was a Member of the European Parliament—but, so far, all attempts to ban it have failed. They have failed because a ban would contravene EU law. In 1992, the Conservative Government then in power sought to restrict live exports and refused licences to export sheep to Spain. Their decision was overturned by the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it would breach EU rules on the free movement of goods.
Now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, we have the opportunity to make the decision here, in this House, on whether to allow or prohibit the export of live animals. But that will be the case only if we leave the customs union and the single market. If we do not, we will remain subject to the restrictions that make a ban impossible today. That provides a further important reason to respect the result of the referendum and create a new partnership with our European neighbours, outside the customs union and the single market.
The case for a ban has been made clearly by a wide-ranging coalition of animal welfare organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and World Horse Welfare. The Conservative manifesto states:
“As we leave the European Union, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter.”
The Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to do exactly that.
We need to deal with not only the slaughter trade but the export of calves for fattening, which can also lead to serious and unnecessary suffering. Nor should we just “control” the trade; we should end it. Nor should we wait until the UK leaves the EU to take action; we should put a prohibition on live export on the statute book now, to come into effect on exit day, as soon as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. The time has come to end this inhumane, cruel and unnecessary trade, which has no legitimate part to play in modern farming. Exports should take place on the hook, not the hoof. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Theresa Villiers, Zac Goldsmith, Craig Mackinlay, Richard Graham, Henry Smith, Caroline Lucas, Angela Smith, Kelvin Hopkins, Sir Roger Gale and Kate Hoey present the Bill.
Theresa Villiers accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 117).

OPPOSITION DAY - [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

SOCIAL CARE

[Relevant documents: Eighth Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2016-17, Adult social care: a pre-Budget report, HC 47, Ninth Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2016-17, Adult social care, HC 1103.]

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
That this House notes the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to a funding proposal for social care which would have no cap on care costs and would include the value of homes in the means test for care at home; further notes that this proposal would leave people with a maximum of only £100,000 of assets; calls on the Government to confirm its intention not to proceed with this commitment; and further calls on the Government to remove the threat to withdraw social care funding from, and stop fines on, local authorities for Delayed Transfers of Care and to commit to the extra funding needed to close the social care funding gap for 2017 and the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament.
After the debacle of the dementia tax, there has been continuing concern that the current and future issues about the funding of social care are not being addressed. The worries stirred up by the Conservative party during the general election will not be resolved without a better idea about what the future now holds for social care.
One place where people were expecting to hear some discussion on this was at the party conferences in September, but if we thought that we would hear about it in the conference speeches of the Secretaries of State responsible for social care, we were sadly let down.
At the Labour party conference, I talked about the crisis in social care and how it was failing those who need care and their families, failing unpaid family carers and failing hundreds of thousands of care workers. People needing care and their carers face the greatest impact. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there are 400,000 fewer people receiving publicly funded care and, sadly, more than 1.2 million people now living with unmet care needs, many of whom are isolated and lonely.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is raising a very important issue, which is leading to a lot of suffering among elderly people in particular. Will she make reference to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly, which, almost two decades ago, recommended free long-term care for all? That is where we should be.

Barbara Keeley: I will talk about how the Labour party will take forward proposals on the future of social care. We wait to hear what the Government choose to do. My hon. Friend is right that there is a driving need now.
The number of people—1.2 million—living with unmet care needs will inevitably rise without an injection of new funding. A lack of publicly funded care means that the task of meeting care needs falls more heavily on  unpaid family carers. Many carers have to give up work because of the demands of caring, with a real impact on their finances and future career prospects. The case for listening to carers and giving them more support is overwhelming. We were expecting a new carers’ strategy this spring, or, at the latest, in the summer. Some 6,500 carers had taken the time over and above their caring responsibilities to respond to the Government’s consultation. However, the Care Minister told me that the responses will merely be taken forward into a new consultation on social care.
Katy Styles, a carer and a campaigner for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, contributed to that consultation and hoped that her voice would be heard, alongside 6,500 other carers. She told me:
“Not publishing the National Carers Strategy has made me extremely angry. It sends a message that carers’ lives are unimportant. It sends a message that Government thinks we can carry on as we are. It sends a message that my own time is of little worth.”
That is a shabby way to treat carers—the people who provide more than 50% of the care in this country.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Lady refers to unpaid carers. Labour’s motion references the Communities and Local Government Committee report on adult social care, which looked at the German system of social insurance. Under that system, payments are made to family members to remunerate them for that care. Has she read that report, and is it something that she is willing to look at in further detail on a cross-party basis?

Barbara Keeley: I will come on later to discuss how we should proceed and whether we should proceed on a cross-party basis. The hon. Gentleman’s point about carers and family carers is important. The plain fact of the matter is that there was nothing for carers in his party’s manifesto. We had announced that we were going to lift carers’ allowance at least to the level of jobseeker’s allowance. That is the only improvement that was discussed during the general election. He should turn to his own Minister and his own party and ask them what they will do for carers.

Mark Harper: I welcome the hon. Lady’s tone in this debate. It is very valuable. I know that she has taken an enormous interest in this subject, even when it has not fallen within her Front-Bench responsibilities. These debates are very helpful in educating people about difficult issues. I am happy to accept that we did not handle this issue well in the general election. The mistake that we made was not being clear about the current system, which is why her reference in the motion to our proposal without setting out the current system in which people can potentially lose all but £23,000 of their assets is disappointing. Such information would have helped to contribute to the public debate.

Barbara Keeley: We will come on to that. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get into the mess that his party made, the truth is that we legislated a number of years ago to lift the asset floor to £118,000. What his party did during the election is drop that to £100,000. At the weekend, we learned that there was an intention to make it only £50,000. He should be clear about what his Front-Bench colleagues were trying to do. Since then, all we have heard is a deafening silence.
We need to focus on the crisis in social care now. We on the Labour Benches have raised many times just how fragile the care sector is after years of swingeing budget cuts by the Government. A survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reported that more than two thirds of councils had reported closures of care providers in the first five months of the financial year. Nearly half those councils had had homecare providers handing back contracts.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend refers again to local authority care homes. In my constituency, three superb local authority care homes were forcibly closed effectively by Government policy. They were loved by the residents. They had full-time, permanently employed trade union staff and were supported and applauded by the local healthcare professionals. They were all closed. Now we have only the private sector, which is in crisis.

Barbara Keeley: It is very important that we bear in mind that the 1.45 million workforce in care will have been local government employees and will have enjoyed local government terms and conditions. We have talked many times about the fact that they are not now paid the minimum wage or travel time. They are very badly paid, with no pensions in prospect.

Kate Green: As my hon. Friend knows, in my constituency, which neighbours hers, we have a real problem in recruiting and retaining care workers, many of whom tell me that they can get better paid work in the local Asda than in doing the job that they love. Does she not agree that that is in part due to the fact that private providers, who would like to pay their staff more, cannot do so because of the insufficiency of the value of the contracts that they receive from the local authority?

Barbara Keeley: That is absolutely the case. In fact, in a recent meeting with Unison, I was told that, in our area in Greater Manchester, one person could be paid more for putting toppings on to pizzas at Morrisons than for providing care—often to people with dementia or to those who really need that help.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Lady talks about a squeeze in funding. On that basis, does she agree that it would be right to ask those who do have the means to contribute more towards their social care in the home?

Barbara Keeley: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the reasons why his party’s dementia tax policy failed so badly. Suddenly to bring hundreds of thousands of people into means-testing using their homes was one of the biggest flaws in the policy that the Conservative party floated.
I will now make a little bit of progress on the state of care, because the fragility of the care sector is a key issue. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) about closures in his area, but councils cannot even influence these closures much anymore because home care providers are handing back contracts. Indeed, one in five councils in the ADASS survey reported closures in all three services:  home care, residential care and nursing home services. There are also serious issues of care quality in many areas of the country.
The survey reported that 70% of the councils surveyed had experienced quality issues across all three types of care services. ADASS estimates that 28,000 people have been affected by care-quality issues or by a change of service due to contracts being handed back. We know that it is a big issue for a person with dementia to have a continual change in the care staff visiting them. Those arguing in favour of cuts need to think about those 28,000 lives affected negatively by cuts to local authority budgets. Worryingly, the Care Quality Commission now reports that almost a quarter of care services are not meeting standards on safety, and nearly a fifth of services require improvement overall.
I said earlier that budget cuts mean that more than 400,000 fewer people are now getting publicly funded care. Of course, councillors, council leaders and social workers have had to make difficult decisions about cutting budgets and cutting support to local people. It is of great credit to councils and council leaders that so many still continue to prioritise adult social care in their budget setting, but the overall position is one of cuts. There will be a real-terms loss of £6.3 billion to adult social care by the end of this financial year, and we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) about the level of cuts in the city of Manchester. The cuts have an impact on staff working in social care.

Jack Dromey: At last, the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have acknowledged that care workers who sleep in, giving loving care to those badly in need of care, are entitled to the national minimum wage. But, as a consequence, a crisis confronts the sector. Mencap says that it is the
“final nail in the coffin for many providers”,
with jobs lost and the risk of bankruptcy for a number of people with personal care packages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government who created this problem should solve this problem and not expect local authorities to pick up the bill?

Barbara Keeley: I absolutely agree, and it was helpful of my hon. Friend to make that point. The sleep-ins issue has been a real cause of worry for many organisations over many months. It just goes to the heart of our assertion that people who work in care should be paid the minimum wage, including when they are working at night, which is what they are doing on sleep-ins. I have a constituent who looks after two households of people in adjoining properties, and she does not get normal sleep during the night as alarms can go off in any part of the properties. It is not right at all that those people were paid just fixed amounts, not the minimum wage. The Government must find the funding for that decision.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do apologise for intervening so often. Does my hon. Friend agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has hinted, that the whole care sector ought to be in the  public sector in the longer term at least, provided on the same basis—free at the point of need—as the national health service?

Barbara Keeley: As I said earlier, I will come to our proposals; I do not want to jump around in my speech too much more.
Going back to staff working in social care, it is important to remember and think about social workers, not just care staff. A recent study found that less than half the social workers surveyed felt that decisions about a person’s care and support were being left to their professional judgment; it is now all about budgets. More than a third said that they had felt unable to get people the care they need. Less than half felt supported to have necessary difficult conversations about changes to care with people needing care and their families.
The social care crisis is a direct result of the cuts that this Government have chosen to make. The King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust estimated that there would be a funding gap in social care budgets of £1.9 billion for this year, but the extra funding in the Budget was only £1 billion, so there is still a funding gap of £900 million this year. Labour pledged an extra £1 billion for social care this year to start to deal with that funding crisis. However, the Government have chosen instead to put the pressure on local authorities and hard-pressed local council taxpayers to deal with that social crisis, which was made in Downing Street.
Delayed transfers of care due to social care cuts increased by more than a quarter in the 12 months to August this year, putting extra pressure on local councils. Now, sadly, Ministers are threatening councils with fines and further funding cuts to social care if targets for cutting delayed transfers of care cannot be met. Indeed, ADASS reported that half the social services directors it surveyed believe that their targets for delayed transfers were unrealistic. It is barely believable that the Government’s response to the social care crisis is to threaten to make the situation worse by cutting funding for social care even further. Some councils experiencing problems meeting targets were even summoned by NHS leaders last week to a meeting to review their performance challenges.
Many people have said that the approach of blaming and penalising local councils is not sustainable. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, said of the warning letters sent from Ministers to councils:
“No council wants to see anyone stay in hospital for a day longer than necessary. These letters are hugely unhelpful at a time when local government and the NHS need to work together to tackle the health and social care crisis.”
The president of the ADASS, Margaret Willcox, has described the Government’s actions in threatening councils with further sanctions as, “frankly bizarre”. David Oliver, who is clinical vice-president of the Royal College of Physicians and a geriatric consultant, said about delayed transfers of care:
“Some of these delays are due to systematic cuts to social care budgets and provision. Others are due to a serious lack of capacity in community healthcare services…attempts to solve the problem through initiatives like the Better Care Fund or pressure from NHS England have failed”.
Interestingly, Andrea Sutcliffe, the chief inspector of social care at the Care Quality Commission, said:
“I worry that if people focus just on moving people through the system quickly then does that mean that they will force the discharge of somebody that is old and frail into a service which we have rated ‘inadequate’”.
We now have a Government who are driving the NHS to be obsessed with dealing with delayed transfers of care, seemingly above all else. This obsession causes further problems if patients are discharged without planning what they need outside hospital.
Age UK give an example that was brought to them:
“Terry’s father Richard, 85, is in hospital following a stroke. He is ready for discharge and has been assessed as needing rehabilitative care through two home visits a day. However he was then told that there are no reablement services available in his area. Terry has been told to ‘get his father out of hospital’ and to look for and fund the care himself.”
My own local hospital, Salford Royal, sadly seems to have similar issues. Last week, I spoke to a constituent who described her own discharge by saying, “I was thrown out of hospital.” Having had surgery for an infected bite that caused sepsis and a hand that she could not use, my constituent was given no discharge summary, no advice on how to manage her wound and no advice about her recovery. When she struggled to get dressed, she was told that she had to get out quickly, otherwise, “This will count as a failed discharge.” This a theme we may remember from last winter.
I remind the Minister that the British Red Cross talked then of a humanitarian crisis whereby people were sent home without clothes or into chaotic situations. Those chaotic situations involved them falling and not being found for hours, or not being washed because there were no care staff to help them. Ordering patients out of hospital when there is no reablement service for them, without advice about wounds or recovery, or to a care facility rated as inadequate just to meet unrealistic targets on delayed discharge is a recipe for an even worse crisis this winter.

Huw Merriman: The social care and hospital budgets have been merged in East Sussex, where my constituency is. As a result, the A&E is now the fastest-improved A&E department in the whole of England. That change is working. Would the hon. Lady’s local authority consider the same model?

Barbara Keeley: My local authority has the most advanced example of an integrated care organisation in the country—we have already transferred all our social care staff to work for Salford Royal. I have just quoted a situation that shows how the pressure being put on hospitals because of delayed transfers of care is causing them to treat people such as my constituent in the way I described. Conservative Members ought to listen to that, because it is their Government and their Ministers who are causing this pressure to be put on hospitals.
We know that demand on social care is increasing as more people live longer with more complex conditions. The number of people aged 75 and over is projected nearly to double by 2039. That ought to be something to celebrate, but instead the Government have created fear and uncertainty for older people by failing to address the health and care challenges raised by those demographic changes. Indeed, the Conservative party is spending less money on social care now than Labour was when it left office in 2010. The Government seem to have no plan to develop a sustainable solution to the  funding of social care in the longer term; they have talked only of a consultation followed by a Green Paper.
Furthermore—and this is raising real fears—the  focus has been entirely on the needs of older people, without consideration being given to the needs of the 280,000 working-age people with disabilities or learning disabilities in the social care system. That is profoundly short-sighted, because the financial pressures on local authorities due to the increasing care needs of younger adults with disabilities or mental health problems are now greater than those due to the need to support older people.

Kate Green: I am glad my hon. Friend has mentioned younger adults. Does she agree that investing in the care they need will facilitate the Government’s achievement of their ambition to have more disabled people who can work in paid employment? Relatively low levels of expenditure on care for those people would pay great dividends for the Government and the country.

Barbara Keeley: Very much so. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is concerning that planned consultations or discussions about future policy should focus so much on older people, when the needs of people with disabilities and learning disabilities are so important. We talked about learning disabilities in a debate last week.
Labour will fill the policy vacuum that exists around social care under this Government. Over the coming months, we will consult experts on how we can move from the current broken system of care to a sustainable service for the long term. We will look at funding options for social care in the long term, such as wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy. Those experts will help clarify the options for funding our planned national care service. Our approach will be underpinned by the principle of pooled risk, so that no one faces catastrophic care costs as they do now or as they would under the Conservative party’s dementia tax.
Our plans are for a national care service. They are based on a consultation—the “Big Care Debate”—that involved 68,000 people. People in that consultation told us that they needed a system that will support them and their families to live the lives they want, that will treat everyone with dignity and respect and that will give them choice and control over their care. I believe those needs remain the same, and they will be at the heart of our ambition for social care.
I urge hon. Members from all parties to vote with the Opposition today so that we can set the foundations for a safer, more sustainable and higher quality care system for the future and reassure those who have become worried about the Conservative party’s dementia tax mess.

Craig Mackinlay: I am always very impressed by the hon. Lady’s knowledge in this area, but just to clarify, did I hear her say that she was considering wealth taxes as a means to pay for these proposals? She talked about a policy vacuum, but I would be interested to hear where the money vacuum is  going to come from. I am also somewhat concerned—I hope she will explain this—that a national care system rather puts families aside.

Barbara Keeley: I am obviously coming to the end of my speech, but I recommend that the hon. Gentleman, if he is interested, read a number of documents. The Labour Government produced a White Paper for a national care service; it is still available, and I advise him to look at it. Given everything I have said about carers in this speech, there is no way that we would not include them as an important part of our proposals, but the burden should not just be dumped on them. Carers should be partners in care, and they should be supported so that they have a life of their own. It is said that the only numbers put on the Conservative party’s proposals for a dementia tax in its manifesto were the page numbers. The Labour party has produced the document I have here—“Funding Britain’s Future”—and a fully costed manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman has a bit more time for reading, I advise him to go to our manifesto and to look at how we laid out the options. We laid them out; we did not get into a mess, as the Conservative party did, and try to change things after four days. We will take this issue forward; we will not kick it into the long grass, as the Conservative party is trying to do.

Rachel Maclean: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Keeley: No, I am just going to finish.
Our motion asks for action to make sure the care sector gets the urgent funding it needs to prevent collapse. It would also ensure that hard-pressed councils are not penalised for failing to meet unrealistic targets for delayed transfers of care.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond in this debate. It gives the Government an opportunity to set out exactly where we are in this space—and the position is not as characterised by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). The hon. Lady was characteristically challenging, and I hope to answer some of the questions she raised. I have some sympathy with some of her messages, and  I hope through my remarks to reassure her on some points.
No speech on this issue should start without paying tribute to everyone who works in social care—from the care assistants, managers of care businesses, occupational therapists, social workers, nurses and trusted assessors to the many officials in local authorities who organise care packages and adaptations for people’s homes. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has just said, the number of people is increasing.

Jim McMahon: Decreasing.

Jackie Doyle-Price: They all have the best of motivations in providing care, and we should celebrate the work they do to support those who find themselves in vulnerable situations across our society. I would like all of us to recognise the excellent work they do.
The quality and provision of care has been hitting the headlines even more than ever recently. It is therefore reassuring and humbling to see the care and support sector respond with such resilience, commitment and compassion. I was delighted to see that the Care Quality Commission has rated 80% of social care settings as good or outstanding.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the Minister for raising that issue, because we should not be so negative about this area. The latest report from the Care Quality Commission said that four out of five institutions offer good or outstanding service. In my constituency, I recently visited Abbeyfield to celebrate its 30th anniversary. Its staff are well paid and they love their jobs, and the people there were very happy. Somerset Care has some excellent institutions, and Cream Care was recently rated outstanding for its services. I took the Secretary of State for Health to visit it relatively recently. Our old people in Somerset need to know that that is the kind of care they can have, and this Government are facilitating it.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend highlights just some of the many examples up and down the country, but we should not be complacent about the 20% of settings that require improvement, and there will be lots of work we can do to raise the standard in them. That includes, not least, the work we are doing in collaboration with the voluntary sector and the Local Government Association to spread examples of good practice and quality. We will obviously continue to do that.
We should also celebrate the other good work going on around the country. In just one year in Sutton, for example, even though the number of beds for care homes supported by GPs in the clinical commissioning group increased by 14%, there was an overall reduction in care home residents attending. That is because the CCG has stepped up to the challenge and has better co-ordination of care, enhanced training of care staff and better health care support for older people in care homes. That shows that, with collaboration, we can get better care standards. Social care therefore continues to be a key priority for the Government.

Jack Dromey: The Minister is right to say that there are none so noble as those who care. However, may I press her on a specific issue? The care sector is facing a disaster as a consequence of having to pick up a £400 million bill because of the confusion in the ranks of Government, and likewise in HMRC, with regard to the entitlement to the minimum wage of those who sleep in. Can she say today that that burden, which was not the creation of the care sector, will not fall on local government and that instead the necessary funds will be met by central Government?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point that I am actively thinking about. He is absolutely right in the sense that providers have been following guidance that has changed. It is clear from our perspective that employers are obliged to meet their obligations under minimum wage legislation, but I am very clear on the challenge that that is giving to the sector, and we will work with it to develop a solution.
Turning to the substance of the motion, we announced in the Queen’s Speech that we will work to address the challenges of social care for our ageing population and bring forward proposals for consultation to build widespread support for future provision.

Judith Cummins: At least 60% of those receiving social care in the home and 70% of those in care homes are people living with dementia. The underfunding of social care has meant that the burden falls disproportionately on those people. Does the Minister agree that whatever the system of social care provided, it is unacceptable that those living with dementia, and their families, should be disproportionately affected?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I invite the House to reflect on what the hon. Lady has said, because that is exactly the issue that we really need to tackle. One in 10 people face very significant costs that they have to meet from their own resources, with only 14,000 ultimately protected. She is right to point out that the vast majority of those people are suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s. We have now reached a time when it is critical that we have a consensus on the future funding of social care so that we can address the injustice that she has very ably highlighted.

Desmond Swayne: Am I right in thinking that under current statute law, a cap of £72,500 will apply from the financial year 2021-22, and that if that settlement is to be altered, it will require primary legislation in this Parliament?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My right hon. Friend is indeed correct.[Official Report, 3 November 2017, Vol. 630, c. 3MC.]
The ageing population presents one of our nation’s most profound challenges. It raises critical questions as to how, as a society, we enable all adults to live well into later life, and how we deliver sustainable public services that support them to do so.

Mark Harper: In a spirit of cross-party consensus, may I add my support to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) by urging that when we bring forward our consultation we cover the nearly 50% of social care spending that is spent on adults with disabilities? I share the view that we must make sure that they are properly supported and able to live full lives, including, where they are able, moving into work. That sometimes gets lost in the debate when we completely focus on people towards the ends of their lives. We must deal with everybody. The hon. Lady made a really important point.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I could not agree more. I share my right hon. Friend’s support for the hon. Lady’s comments. There are still many opportunities to get working-age adults with disabilities into work. We have set ourselves a target of getting 1 million more people with disabilities into work, and we are very committed to doing that.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South in her opening remarks, yes, much of the debate has focused on how we care for the elderly, but, as she and the whole House will be  aware, support for working-age adults is becoming an increasingly big proportion of local authority spending in this area, and it is very important that we focus on it. Alongside the preparations we are making for consultation in the new year, we have a parallel work stream looking specifically at working-age adults, because some of the solutions will be similar and some will be different.

Barbara Keeley: It is very important that we have got to this point today, because very many organisations and individuals have been worried for months about that. In the Queen’s Speech and in letters the Minister has sent to me, the talk has been of a consultation on social care for older people. The wording needs to change if that is to encompass, as it should, working-age people with disabilities or learning disabilities. Let us stop focusing just on older people. If she would stop doing that in letters and we could have clarity on this, it would be helpful. I also wonder why there has to be separate work stream.

Jackie Doyle-Price: There needs to be a separate work stream because it is connected to the desire to get more people into work, but the two programmes are working in parallel. As I said, today is a great opportunity to get that on the record. Certainly, it has been very much a focus of my conversations with voluntary groups in the sector.

Mark Harper: Picking up the point about the work being separate but parallel, in thinking about how we are going to fund the care, it is really important to make sure that we do not inadvertently put in place any barriers to work, whereby somebody would find that moving into work would increase the cost of their care to the extent that working was of no consequence. That would not be an issue of funding care for older people, where there are some different challenges. A separate but parallel structure may well be the right one to go for.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Again, I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend says.
To reassure the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss all these issues in the new year. We want to progress this by building a real consensus, because it is a strategic challenge facing us all. Not only are we all living longer, but working-age adults with disabilities are living longer. That is a matter for celebration, and we must do everything we can to make sure that we can meet all our obligations to them.

Kate Green: I am glad that we are spending time on this subject. The Minister will recognise, I am sure, that for working-age adults, relatively modest amounts of care may enable them to participate more fully in the workplace and in wider civil society. Will the separate but parallel work stream acknowledge that? I fear that there will be pressure just to look at the most severe and critical-level need, meaning that many people who could work with a small amount of help will be shut out of doing so.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I could not put it better myself. Necessarily, the system will always focus more on those with the most need, but, as the hon. Lady says, we can  get a lot more return from putting in good value for money measures that will support people to live independently and to be able to work. I am very keen to explore those areas.

Tracy Brabin: rose—

Jackie Doyle-Price: I will take one more intervention, but I really do need to make progress.

Tracy Brabin: I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she give me some advice for my constituent—a mother with a daughter who is quite disabled with epilepsy? When the mother was retiring, she realised that she would lose her carer’s allowance as she went on to the state pension. When she rang HMRC and the Department to inquire, they said, “By your age, they are normally shoved into a home.” Can the Minister give me some advice on how I could support my constituent?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am not very impressed by the tale that the hon. Lady describes, but I would like to look into it more directly and get back to her.
The Government have already invested an additional £2 billion to put social care on a more stable footing and alleviate short-term pressures across the health and care system. However, further long-term reform is required to ensure that we have a sustainable system for the future—one equipped to meet the challenges of the increasing numbers of people with care needs. To address these questions, the Government will work with partners—including those who use services, those who work to provide care, and all other agencies—to bring forward proposals for public consultation. The consultation will cover a wide range of options to encourage a very wide debate. It will set out options to improve the social care system and put it on a more secure financial footing, supporting people, families and communities to prepare for old age, and it will address issues related to the quality of care and variation in practice. It will include proposals on options for caps on overall care costs and means-tested floors. It is, however, a consultation, and the Government wish to approach the future of social care in the spirit of consensus. Our consultation is designed to encourage a grown-up conversation in order that society can rise to this challenge.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Minister refers to a number of options that the Government will consider. Will they also consider the suggestion contained in that Select Committee report of a system of social insurance, which would be sustainable and simple and would deal with some of the points raised about adults of working age with learning disabilities? The scheme would cover all those things and provide protection for people who are on low incomes. It seems to work very effectively in Germany, where it garnered cross-party support when it was introduced.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I agree that we want to learn from examples in other countries. As I have said, the spirit of the consultation will be to allow a well-informed debate, as a result of which consensus can be established.  In view of that, we will consider a wide variety of options, covering not just funding but lifestyle solutions and other issues.

Karin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I must make some progress, because I have taken many interventions. I do apologise.
Adult social care funding is made up of Government grant, council tax and business rates. The better care fund, which was announced in 2013, has further helped to join up health and care services so that people can manage their own health and wellbeing and live independently in their communities for as long as possible. The 2015 spending review introduced an adult social care precept that enabled councils to raise council tax specifically to support social care services. By 2019-20, that could raise up to £1.8 billion extra for councils each year. As a further boost to social care, the Chancellor announced in the Budget earlier this year that local authorities in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years. This year, £1 billion has been provided to ensure that councils can fund more care packages immediately. The additional money means that local authorities in England will receive an estimated increase of £9.25 billion in the dedicated money available for social care over the next three years. Statistics produced today show that spending on adult social care increased in real terms last year by 1.5% thanks, in part, to the precept.

Barbara Keeley: This is an important point. Our motion mentions the need to close the funding gap, which is not £1 billion but £1.9 billion. So £900 million is still not covered, and that is what councils are struggling with. The Minister makes the point about extra funding being raised from local taxation. Does she accept that there is still a funding gap, which means that people cannot be paid the national living wage? We are going to struggle all the way through winter unless the Government accept the existence of that gap and work to close it.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I do not accept that. Let us recognise that this has been hard in the past. We have made money available in recent years, but we know that local authorities have faced challenges. As one local authority put it to me, however, austerity has been the mother of invention, and I congratulate local authorities on the efforts that they have made. [Interruption.] That came from a local authority leader, and I agree that local authorities have shown considerable initiative by implementing savings. As for the national minimum wage, it is enforceable, so I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point at all.

Barbara Keeley: Does the Minister accept that the Government are providing less funding for social care than they were in 2010? She can check that with NHS Digital. The funding is less in real terms. It does not matter that it has increased this year because of the social care levy; it is less. Given the complexity of the issue and the growing demographic challenge, it is clear why we have this gap.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I think it matters a great deal that we have made £9.25 billion available.

Mark Harper: Will the Minister give way on the funding issue?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I need to make progress. I apologise to my right hon. Friend.
On delayed transfers of care, the Government are clear that no one should stay in a hospital bed for longer than is necessary. Doing so removes people’s dignity and reduces their quality of life. It leads to poorer health and care outcomes, and it is more expensive for the taxpayer. I will set out in more detail the work we are doing to reduce delayed transfers of care. That is critical, because a well-functioning social care system enables the NHS to provide the best possible service.
We are clear that we must make much faster and more significant progress well in advance of winter to help to free up hospital beds for the sickest patients and reduce pressures on overcrowded A&E departments. Last year, there were 2.25 million delayed discharges, up 24.5% from the 1.81 million in the previous year. Just over a third of those delays were attributable to social care. The proportion of delays attributable to social care increased over the last year by four percentage points to 37% in August 2017.
We have put in place an agile and supportive improvement infrastructure, and I have been very clear about priorities. First, in this year’s mandate to NHS England we set out a clear expectation that delayed transfers of care should equate to no more than 3.5% of all hospital beds by September. Those in the system have worked extremely hard to agree spending plans and put in place actions to make use of the additional funding, and they deserve real congratulation for their efforts. Since February, there have been significant improvements in the health and care system where local government and the NHS have worked together to tackle the challenge of delayed transfers of care, with a record decrease in month-on-month delayed discharges in April 2017.

Liz Kendall: Will the Minister give way?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I must make progress. Secondly, we put in place a comprehensive sector-led support offer. In early July, NHS England, NHS Improvement, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services published a definitive national offer to support the NHS and local government to reduce delays. This package supports all organisations to make improvements and includes the integration of better care fund planning requirements to clarify how this and other aspects of the better care fund planning process will operate.

Liz Kendall: Will the Minister give way?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I have limited time, and I really must get this improvement on the record.
The package also includes joint NHS England,  NHS Improvement, LGA and ADASS guidance on implementing trusted assessors; the introduction of greater transparency through the publication of a dashboard showing how local areas in England are performing against metrics; and plans for local government to  deliver an equal share to the NHS of the expectation to free up 2,500 hospital beds. The package sets out clear expectations for each local area, reflecting the fact that reducing such delays in transfers of care must be a shared endeavour across the NHS and social care. Those expectations are stretching, but they are vital for people’s welfare, particularly over the winter period.
Thirdly, we have asked the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission to undertake 20 reviews of the most challenged areas to consider how well they are working at the health and social care boundary. Twelve of the reviews are under way and a further eight will be announced in November, based on the performance dashboard and informed by returns from July. Those reviews commenced in the summer, and the majority of them are due to be completed by the end of November. They are identifying issues and driving rapid improvement.
Fourthly, we have provided guidance on best practice, including how to put in place “trusted assessor” arrangements, which can allow more efficient discharge from hospital by avoiding duplicative patient assessments by different organisations. All areas have now submitted their better care fund plans, which include their trajectories for reducing delays.
Finally, in October we asked NHS England to extend the GP and pharmacy influenza vaccination service to include all paid careworkers in the nursing and residential care sector. They will be able to access the service via local GPs and pharmacies free of charge.
I know that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South is concerned about the provisions for those that fail to improve, and I want to tackle head-on the suggestion that there will be fines. We are not talking about fines at all. The money that has been earmarked will continue to be retained by local authorities.

Liz Kendall: Leicestershire County Council fears that it could have £22 million removed from its budget because of fines for delayed discharges, when the Government have cut its funds. The Conservative deputy leader, Byron Rhodes, says:
“I can’t think of anything more stupid.”
The Conservative leader, Nick Rushton, says:
“How long can we put up with the Secretary of State?”
That is the reality of the policy. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I reject the suggestion that there will be any kind of fine. The £22 million that the hon. Lady talks about will be retained for spending within Leicestershire. That funding has been allocated for a specific purpose, and where local authorities are not showing the improvement that we expect, we will work collaboratively with them and advise them how best to use that money.
Let me put on record exactly what we are going to do. There is significant variation in performance across local areas. We know that 41 health and wellbeing boards are collectively responsible for 56.4% of adult social care delayed transfers of care. That cannot be right, when other local authority areas have none. In particular, Newcastle has no adult social care delayed transfers of care, and if it can do that, other areas can as well, provided we have good partnerships and good leadership. I trust that I have demonstrated the extent   to which the Government are supportive of the best performing systems where local government and the NHS are working together to tackle this challenge. However, we are clear that we must make much faster and more significant progress in advance of winter to help to free up hospital beds for the sickest patients and to reduce pressures on our A&E departments.
It is right that there should be consequences for those who fail to improve. Earlier this month, we wrote to all local authority areas informing them that if their performance did not improve, the Government may direct the spending of the poorest performers—it is not a fine—and we reserve the right to review allocations. It is important to note that the allocations will remain with local government to be spent on adult social care. It is not a fine; this is about making sure that public money delivers the intended outcomes.

Barbara Keeley: Is the Minister saying that revising an allocation is not a fine? When an allocation is revised—presumably downwards, not upwards—that is a fine.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am sorry, but that is not the case. The money will be retained by local government, but we will direct the spending to achieve the outcome the money is intended to deliver. That is exactly what we should do as a Government, and it is how we ensure value for money.
The health and care system has committed staff and managers up and down the country who are working every single day to deliver the best outcomes for people.

Karin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I have already taken too much time.
The measures I have set out have given our hard-working workforce and their leaders clarity about how the Government expect the NHS and local government to work together to achieve the joint ambition of reducing delayed transfers of care, which will be instrumental in delivering high-quality care.
To summarise, we accept that there are significant challenges in the health and care systems, which is why we are increasing funding in real terms over the lifetime of this Parliament, but this is not just about money. It is about sharing innovation and best practice; it is about integration and defining new models of care; it involves thinking about a long-term sustainable solution to the care system; and, most importantly of all, it is about supporting the 1.5 million people who work in the care system, as well as the millions of people who selflessly look after families and friends with little or no reward. We are committed to all of these.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is speaking for the SNP, let me say that we have a lot of speakers this afternoon, so after her speech I will bring in a time limit. The time limit will be five minutes to start with, but it may have to be reduced later.

Philippa Whitford: We have all seen the figures about everyone getting older. If we look over the lifetime of the NHS from 1948 to  the predictions for 2030, we see that the number of people over 65 will double and the number of people over 85 will increase by 10 times, yet the number of funded places for care has gone down by a quarter. Those two things simply do not match up. As the Minister mentioned, those under 65 with disabilities or learning disabilities are also, thankfully, living longer. The problem is to provide them with care. As a doctor, I obviously tried to do my little bit for people living longer. We should not look at this as a catastrophe; we must celebrate it. We are all heading there, so it is in our own vested interest to ensure that the services will be there for us.
We know that a lot of people’s state of health in older age is laid down in the early years. In Scotland, we are focusing on the early years collaborative—from the baby box for every newborn child, the 30 hours’ early learning entitlement, doubling active transport and rolling out through schools what is called the daily mile. However, we will not get a financial return on that for 50 or  60 years, so we must also invest in our older citizens. In Scotland, we are trying to expand elective services to meet the demand for operations on hips, knees and eyes, but the King’s Fund reports that hip and knee joint replacements are being rationed, and we know that three quarters of trusts have set such strict limits on accessing cataract surgery that people are, in essence, losing their sight, and certainly losing the ability to drive, with half of the trusts fixing only one eye.
Doing such things means driving people into their own homes and into isolation, as well as increasing their need for care and increasing the speed, or lowering the age, at which they need care. It really does not make sense. Age UK points out that 1.2 million people are not getting the care they need, and that matches almost exactly the 1 million family carers who are actually providing the bulk of the care required. In Scotland, we have already committed to raising carer’s allowance from £60 to match jobseeker’s allowance, but that is pretty paltry for someone working, in essence, seven days a week, while 40% of them are reported not to have had any respite or break in a year.
Such a situation arises because the statutory system is not supporting carers, and we need to look at this. Care homes are closing because of the extra costs brought in by the national living wage, and part of that is simply because the price paid is being driven down. As has been mentioned, over half of local authorities are seeing either home care providers or nursing and care home providers closing. The thing is that we need to pay people a decent wage—not the national living wage, but the real living wage. This needs to become a profession that attracts and retains people. Who would we like to look after us or our mother or father—someone who is doing it only for six months until they can get something better, or someone who actually believes in looking after our older population with the greatest possible love, care and dignity?
We need to put in the funding. The Minister talked about the better care fund, which has indeed put in extra money, but that is at the cost of the new homes   bonus in England, while local authorities are also being told to build more houses. What are they meant to do? We need to put this on a sustainable footing. We also need to address the issue of those under 65. In Scotland, our programme for government includes a commitment to the under-65s with what is called Frank’s law, in honour of a football player from Dundee who developed early dementia. We have people aged under 65 with the same needs—those with early dementia, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease. Why should their birth date dictate whether or not they get help?

Christine Jardine: The hon. Lady is painting quite a rosy picture of the social care system in Scotland, but does she not accept that it has serious problems as well? In my constituency, I know of a gentleman who was in hospital 150 nights after he could have been transferred because no care package was in place. Freedom of information inquiries have shown that people have spent 400 nights in care when they could have been transferred. Does she accept that the picture in Scotland is not entirely rosy?

Philippa Whitford: I totally accept that the position is not entirely rosy. I said many times in the Chamber before the hon. Lady entered the House that we face the same challenges. Those challenges are increased demand, workforce needs—they will be made significantly worse by Brexit—and the fact that money is tight. We face exactly the same challenges. Some of the patients she refers to will have had particularly complex needs that it was a struggle to meet. We are talking about the fact that we are funding free personal care—it is not based on means-testing—and we are working towards providing it for under-65s.
Everything happening in England at the moment will seemingly be solved by the sustainability and transformation plans, yet they have been set backside forwards, with designers having to work backwards from the budget line, which is made the predominant thing. That will not produce the desired result, and it must be recognised that supporting people at home and in the community is desirable in its own right. None of us wants to be stuck in a hospital or in a care home if we could be looked after in our own home; that is the choice we would all make. That will not necessarily cut the money required by a hospital. The nurses will still be there, the lights will still be on. What it might mean is that that bed can be more effectively used and waiting times for surgery or other treatments can be achieved, and they are not at the moment.
On the news yesterday, there was talk about the inefficiency of operating lists, and the former president of the Royal College of Surgeons clearly said that this comes down to beds. The number of beds in England has been cut in half over recent decades, and the problem is that if a patient cannot be put in a bed before or after the operation, the operation cannot be done. That is often discovered only the day before, and we cannot just drum up another bed.
All sorts of things, not just delayed discharges, are driving inefficiencies within the system. The thing generating the biggest pressure on the NHS has been the cuts in funding to social care that mean that by 2020 in England a funding gap of more than £2 billion will have to be met. We all want to look forward to a dignified older  age. We hope that we will be independent and healthy. We need to invest in that, yet public health spending has gone down 5%. Should we need care, we will also want care that is dignified and decent. That has to be funded.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and I particularly commend her comments on the importance of prevention, which we must not forget. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the wider care and health workforce, and of course the many unpaid family carers for all that they do. I would like to touch on the forthcoming consultation and some of the current and future challenges. If hon. Members will forgive me, I will take very few interventions because I know that many are waiting to speak.
On the consultation, the Health Committee yesterday had the pleasure of hearing from members of the House of Lords Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS on the subject of the long-term sustainability of the NHS and social care. They started out with the remit of talking about the NHS, but rapidly realised that the two systems are completely inseparable and that we have to stop considering health and social care in separate silos. The Minister will hear overwhelmingly from the people who contribute to the consultation that we cannot keep thinking of these systems in isolation, so right from the outset will she make it a consultation on the sustainable future funding of both health and social care?
One thing that we heard loud and clear from members of the Lords Committee yesterday was that we need to do more about future planning and that the system for this has been dismal for decades. Their recommendation was that we should set up an office for health and care sustainability that gives us all good-quality, reliable data about not only the demographic challenges but the future needs of both systems so that we can plan ahead for the costs we face in a realistic manner.
Too often in this House we have very divisive debates on this issue, and the challenges in funding future health and care costs are so enormous that I fear the only way we will meet them is by those on both Front Benches and all Members across the House agreeing that we need to work jointly to reach solutions, because no political party has a monopoly on good ideas. Particularly in a hung Parliament, where it is very difficult for us to pass primary legislation, the only way we will move forward on behalf of the people we all represent—we all want the best for them—is if the solutions are worked towards jointly across the House. I hope all Members will move forward in this debate in a spirit of co-operation, because we have to fund this properly. I am afraid that there is a funding gap, although I absolutely welcome the £2 billion that has been pledged. There is consensus that by the time we reach 2019-20, we will face an estimated funding gap, despite the uplift, of more than £2 billion. That will have a real impact on all those we represent.
We must fund this properly not just now, in the short term, but in the long term, and we must come forward with solutions, but it is not just about funding. It is about staffing, and planning properly for a wider workforce across health and social care, so I very much hope that  that will also be included in the consultation. Unless we plan ahead for our future workforce, we will always be playing catch-up, as we do at the moment. Of course, we have seen many important changes. In the future, for example, healthcare assistants will be able to train to move forward through the apprenticeship route to become nursing associates and on into degree nursing. We know from Camilla Cavendish’s review that it is not just about pay in the sector but the lack of continuing professional development and training opportunities and, in particular, the inability to rotate through the NHS and social care community settings. That gives an example of how the Government are making some positive moves, which I welcome.
I hope that from the start the consultation will cover both health and social care and that the Minister will go further in covering not just the sleep-in crisis but some of the many other issues that affect my constituents. For example, some are having their assessments re-examined, and disabled young adults facing a change in the support that will be available to them. I hope that the Minister will meet me to discuss some of the issues raised by my constituents in Kingsbridge who face significant changes to their care.

Liz Kendall: It is a privilege to follow the Chair of the Health Committee, and I shall pick up on some of the themes she raised.
During the election, Conservative Members were no doubt dismayed that their manifesto proposals were dubbed a “dementia tax”, conveniently forgetting their “death tax” assault on Labour in 2010. While some of us could be forgiven for experiencing more than a little schadenfreude, the truth is we face a fundamental problem. Our population is ageing, more people need help and support and our care services desperately need more money to cope, yet any party that comes up with a significant proposal for funding social care risks their political opponents destroying them.
We could carry on like this for yet another Parliament, and yet another election, or we could face up to reality: we will only get lasting change if we secure a cross-party approach. That is why I have joined the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and other Select Committee Chairs in calling on the Prime Minister to establish a cross-party commission on the future funding of health and social care. We cannot allow this issue to be kicked into the long grass any longer. More than a million people are not getting the help and care they need. Many end up in hospital, and are getting stuck in hospital for longer. That is not good for them, and it costs the taxpayer far more.
It is not just the people who need care who face  a daily struggle. Six and a half million people in this country now care for an older or disabled relative;  40% of them have not had a break for a year, and a quarter have not had a single day away from caring in five years. What is the result? A third of unpaid carers have to give up work or reduce their hours, so their incomes are reduced, the cost of benefits increases and the economy is denied their talents and skills. The failure  to deal with the funding problem has not just created a care crisis—it has created a crisis for families and our economy.
Alongside a significant and immediate injection of cash, which we must see in next month’s Budget, three long-term questions must now be addressed. First, what is the right balance between the contribution made by individuals and the state? Do we leave all the extra costs of care to individuals who are unlucky enough to need it, and who might end up seeing all their savings wiped out as a result, or do we pool our resources, share the costs and risks and create a fairer system for all?
Secondly, what is the right balance of funding across the generations? The Conservative manifesto proposals were deeply flawed, but with the longest period of wage stagnation for 150 years and rising personal debt, I do not believe the working-age population can pay for all the additional costs of caring for our ageing population. Wealthier older people will need to make a contribution, too.
Thirdly, how do we get rid of the inequities between the NHS and social care, and make the fundamental reforms we need to provide a single joined-up service and shift the focus of care and support towards prevention? The Barker review for the King’s Fund rightly calls for a single budget for the NHS and social care, and a single body to commission services locally. It also says that we must face up to the deep unfairness that while cancer care is provided free at the point of need on the NHS, if you suffer from dementia, you may have to pay for all your care yourself.
These are inevitably difficult and controversial questions, but the Prime Minister’s experience during the general election campaign and Labour’s experience in 2010 simply reinforces the argument that we need a cross-party approach. The Government must now act.

Maggie Throup: It is a pleasure to follow my fellow east midlands MP, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall).
Like many Members from across the House, I was compelled to speak in today’s debate because of my personal experience with the social care system, and because of my deep respect for all who work in it and contribute to it. For five years, my father has been in the care of a nursing home in Keighley. At age 94, my dad is still in good spirits, but he has significant care needs as a result of a massive stroke in 2012. It is a testament to the fantastic work of our NHS that we now find ourselves in a position where every care home in the country has residents who 10, 20 or 30 years ago would not have survived serious health issues such as a stroke, a heart attack or cancer. For the Government, however, this success in the NHS can be seen as a double-edged sword, with successive Administrations failing to prepare our social care system adequately for an ageing population living with co-morbidities.
Let me be clear, when I talk about adequate preparation, it is not just about additional funding. As we have heard, the Chancellor has already announced an additional £2 billion of funding for local authorities to fund social care over the next three years and has also introduced a precept. That must be welcomed, as it rightly acknowledges the significant extra pressure that our social care system, and consequently our NHS, is now under.
Opposition Members seem to want to blame the Government, whereas successive Governments, going back to when they were in government, failed to act. They failed to act on the royal commission they set up, and they failed to act on the Wanless report and their own Green Paper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) indicated, we now have the opportunity to effect radical change to the current system, as the Government embark on their comprehensive consultation on adult social care. Others have alluded to the fact that Britain needs a sustainable programme of social care for the long term. We need to stop thinking short term. To achieve that, I would like to explore the idea of removing the social care remit from local authority responsibility and instead placing it under the wider umbrella of the Department of Health, which would become the Department of Health and Care. This stems from the fact that health and social care have now become intrinsically linked, but are currently administered in vastly different ways. If the two are unified, it would allow for closer integration of services and a greater understanding of what demand there will be for future needs from both the social care and health perspective.
It would also protect the social care system from political manipulation, which has happened in Derbyshire at county council level, where the new Conservative administration found itself facing a social care bombshell left by Labour. Over the previous four years, and despite holding around £233 million of Derbyshire taxpayers’ money in its reserves, Labour failed to maintain care homes such as Hazelwood in Cotmanhay in my constituency, in order to trot out the same old line about Tory Government cuts. As a result of this shameful political practice, the county council must now consider closing the care home altogether, because of the significant repairs required to make it safe and warm for residents. I urge the Minister today to do all he can, from the local government point of view, to help Derbyshire County Council to keep this much-loved care home open. There is no doubt that Derbyshire County Council and others face more tough decisions over the next five years. As the MP, I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that Erewash residents remain well provided for, for both their health and social care needs.

Jo Platt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate.
As I am Member of Parliament for the borough with the largest ageing population in Greater Manchester, social care provision is an extremely serious matter for my constituents. Consequently, social care funding accounts for almost a third of the total spend by Wigan Council. However, hit by local authority budget cuts, there will be an overall reduction in social care funding of £26 million over the next three years. When factoring in the increased demand on social care, the local authority’s black hole rises to £40 million. These funding cuts have been met by the local authority largely through efficiency and transformational programmes to reduce costs while maintaining and, in some cases, improving standards. However, the Government’s proposed supported housing cap, the universal credit roll-out and the living wage obligation all limit severely the services that local authorities can provide.
What we have seen from this Government is an attack from all angles on local authorities, leaving them simply unable to meet their care obligations. The future for local authority funding looks even bleaker. The Government have so far failed to set out a long-term social care strategy, or explain how they intend to fund local authority provision after 2020. This leaves constituents deeply concerned about the care they will receive, and local authorities unable to find any further savings to protect their core service provision. As the ageing population begins to require care services just as budgets are so ruthlessly slashed, the opportunity to realise further reductions in costs diminishes.
Local authorities are rightly very concerned that even the threat of restricted care funding will deter third sector organisations from investing in services. When factoring in the Government’s flawed introduction of their living wage, it is unsurprising that in my constituency planned projects have been cancelled and care provision reduced, resulting in dangerous levels of excess demand in the local care sector. Where does that leave people and who can they turn to? It will force them to either rely on their remaining savings and their family to meet their care needs, or put the burden on the NHS, with patients who require social care provision sitting in hospital wards instead. Not only are patients not receiving the correct care they require, but this is an enormous drain on already stretched NHS resources.
That brings me to my final point on this vicious circle: the delayed transfer of care. Is it any wonder, when local authorities face budget cuts, that third sector organisations are pulling out of the care sector, the demand for care services is greater than ever, and delayed transfer of care is rising at a rate of 25% per year, costing the NHS £173 million in the last year alone? The social care crisis will continue to grow until the Government propose a fair, comprehensive and long-term funding strategy. This strategy cannot include cuts to local authority budgets or any additional pressures on the NHS, and, most importantly, it cannot risk draining social care patients of their life savings, as the Prime Minister proposed during the general election campaign. I hope that after this debate the Government will realise the extent of the pressure their policies are putting on local authorities, care providers and the NHS, and introduce a national and fully integrated care service that puts social care patients first, and fairly funds the care sector for the future.

James Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt).
I think that there is a consensus in the House that social care is one of the biggest policy challenges we face and that we need to get it right not just for current elderly people, but, as pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for working-age adults with disabilities. In that respect, it is important to see social care in relation to the mental health of people with learning disabilities. Funding is clearly crucial in this discussion, too, as the Government recognised in this year’s Budget, which increased funding for social care and gave local authorities freedom over the council tax precept. I have seen in the Borough of Dudley, part of which I represent, how that has had a positive impact on the frontline of adult social care.
I want to make two points about the future strategy for adult social care. The first is about structures, and the second about people. Despite positive efforts made—let us not forget it was this Government and the previous coalition Government who introduced the better care fund to begin the process of health and social care integration—the picture is still a fragmented one. People have talked about delayed transfers of care. In reality, there is huge variation across the country in relation to delayed transfers of care, as a result, broadly, of the fact that the process of integration between health and social care has only just begun. We need to move further and faster. I agree with the Chair of the Health Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), that we need to see this system as one system—a health and social care system. We will make progress only if we see it in that light.
It is also important to think about the devolved nature of adult social care. In Greater Manchester, funding for social care and health is devolved. It is probably too early to say whether this has been a success, but there are strong arguments to say that if we are properly to reform the system of health and social care, we should not be trying to do it nationally, as the Opposition are arguing; we should chunk it into smaller bits at a regional level and perhaps give responsibility for adult social care to bodies such as the West Midlands Combined Authority and devolved Mayors. We need a fully integrated system of sufficient scale, however, and I think the regions are the best place to locate that.
The second point I want to make is about people. Others have mentioned the crucial role of people working in the care sector and of informal carers. People are clearly a massive constraint on adult social care, so we need to think carefully about how we develop the carers workforce as we move forward. Others have said that it needs high levels of professional recognition and better career structures and incentives. The objective should be to have people working in the care sector who feel on an equal standing to those in nursing and other professions. Currently, we see the health and social care workforces in two separate places, but we should be perceiving them as a single seamless workforce who need to be developed, with the right incentives, to cater for the needs of our health and social care system. We also need to consider the arguments about statutory rights for informal carers, who do not have any rights at the moment, and we need to think about incentives, because clearly informal carers benefit the economy and reduce costs to the Exchequer.
We need to think about the future of an integrated social and healthcare system. It will require extra funding, but funding will be effective only if we achieve that fundamental reform of a seamless health and social care system capable of responding to the needs of people in the health system and social care. We will achieve that only if we take a radically different view of what we mean by a carer workforce, how we treat that workforce and how we treat informal care. If we get that right, we will make a lot of progress.

Thelma Walker: I begin with these words:
“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the disabled.”
Those words, spoken by Vice-President of the United States Hubert Humphrey, still ring true today. Social care should be not just a process of government but a moral duty of care for each and every one of us. We should make sure that every person being looked after in social care systems, whether run by a local authority or a private company, can expect the level of care that any of us would expect for our families and ourselves one day.
Whether someone is rich or poor, has a debilitating illness or is elderly, they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Money should not be a factor in the level of care that someone receives. The Conservative manifesto proposed a tax on people affected by dementia. Why do the Government consider people affected by dementia any less worthy than those with, let us say, cancer or diabetes, or those who have had a stroke? Let me repeat myself, Mr Speaker: whether someone is rich or poor, has a debilitating illness or is elderly, they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
Dementia costs the UK economy about £26 billion a year. That is enough money to pay for every household’s energy bill for a year. It is estimated that 1,330 people in my constituency have dementia and that every three minutes someone in the UK will be diagnosed with the condition. Every one of us in this place has had, or will most likely have, some experience of supporting someone with dementia, whether a family member or friend, or a constituent whose family has contacted us for support or a neighbour.
Let us not ignore the elephant in the room. Local authorities have faced crippling cuts to budgets owing to the Government’s austerity-driven agenda. My local council, Kirklees, is currently spending £101.8 million per year on adult social care, which is 35% of its total budget. Kirklees has had its direct funding from the Government cut already by £129 million, and a further £65 million will be cut in the next few years. In addition, it is predicted that the number of people in Kirklees over the age of 65 will increase by 29% in the next 13 years. With cuts to their budgets and growing demand, our local councils are struggling to make sure the most vulnerable in society are protected and looked after. Government Members can try to blame the social care crisis on local councils, but we all know that their hard-line austerity agenda is the reason.
I return to the first part of my speech. What Vice-President Humphrey said needs to resonate with every single one of us in this House. This is a moral issue. I feel that we also need to recognise the work that unpaid carers do. In Kirklees, there are 45,400 unpaid carers. These family members, friends and neighbours are often a lifeline to those with long-term illnesses, and I hope the Government will do more to support them.

Derek Thomas: I concur with pretty much everything said this afternoon. As an MP who recently fought a marginal seat, I fully felt the pain and discomfort over how we handled the proposals for  social care. Since then, however, several constituents have come to me having lost family homes because they needed to pay for a family member in care. As we know, the money people have can dwindle down to £23,000 before the local authority steps in.
Our manifesto plan to protect people with up to £100,00 and to ensure that their properties were sold only after they had passed away has been welcomed by those who have come to see me. People often do not realise—I am surprised that the Labour party has not picked this up—that that policy supports our poorest families rather than those who may have greater assets.
I am a Cornish Member of Parliament. Two weeks ago, the Care Quality Commission put our urgent care hospitals into special measures. The CQC’s report, which also looked at social care and the role of the local authority in Cornwall, states that 82 people in the county are in beds in those urgent care hospitals owing to delayed transfers of care, as against 42 in comparable local authority areas. The report makes it clear that Cornwall Council, which has been run by the Liberal Democrats since 2013, has chosen to give half as much funding to social care as comparable authorities do. That has put enormous pressure on Cornwall’s NHS budget, which is currently funding those gaps in social care support. In April, the Government gave a further £12 million to Cornwall council to address the delayed transfers of care, and a further £12 million is promised for 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Our health system is under enormous pressure, largely owing to delayed transfers of care, but we know that our care and support workers need and deserve proper pay that reflects the work that they do and is similar to that of NHS assistants. They deserve that extra money, and they deserve the training that would help them to do their job more easily and safely. My plea to the Government is to do what they can to help Cornwall Council to prioritise social care and help it to address the challenges that it faces in deciding how to allocate funds and how to reward those who provide social care services on the frontline.
It is very easy for people always to blame the Government, and that has been a habit of our local authority—every time a decision is made, it says that it is because of Government cuts—but sometimes the responsibility must be shared by local managers. I welcome the Government’s intention to review social care, but I agree with other Members that their review must look at how we can integrate health and social care, because a weakness in one currently has dramatic impacts on the other.
People in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles deserve the very best care, and there are those on the ground who want to provide it, but all sorts of barriers hinder them from doing so. I ask the Government to work urgently to help our local authorities to address that crisis.

Gill Furniss: Nearly every day, my office is introduced to a new case in which a constituent and his or her family are facing the harsh and difficult realities of a social care system in crisis, but this is not a crisis born out of necessity. Unfortunately, it is the cruel consequence of an ideologically driven cost-cutting agenda in action. It is a crisis that has been created at the heart of No 10.
The Tories have presided over an unprecedented attack on social care budgets. Some £4.6 billion has been taken from adult social care budgets since 2010, at a time when demand is growing. Reports by the King’s Fund make it clear that the adult social care system as it stands is
“failing older people, their families and carers”,
and that it will have a funding hole of £2.1 billion by 2019-20 which, if left unresolved, will continue to fuel the crisis. The same pattern is found in my home town, Sheffield, where there is a growing population of over-65s, all with a longer life expectancy than ever before. Sheffield City Council’s budget has been cut to the tune of £352 million since 2010, and further cuts are on  their way.
As a result of the cuts, councils have had to make difficult decisions. Across England, 400,000 fewer people are able to access publicly funded social care, and one in eight older people is living with unmet care needs. The impact on people and their families in our communities has been harrowing. What is more, the deep cuts inflicted by No. 10 are not only cruel, but nonsensical and ineffective. For example, councils are having to limit the hourly care fees paid to providers.
A recent case in my constituency has highlighted the doubly negative effect of limited administration and care payment resources. My constituent has significant daily care needs, and she and the council have struggled to keep up with resourcing those complex needs. Care providers have withdrawn at short notice, leaving the council and the patient’s family frantically trying to find a new provider. The under-resourcing of social care creates the dual problem of a higher than acceptable turnover of providers, and councils without the resources to step in effectively. That causes much upset and pain to the most vulnerable in our society.
Another consequence of the deep cuts is the level of the duty of care that is being placed on unpaid carers, and, as we know, women are largely bearing the brunt of that work. In one case, a granddaughter cared for her grandmother for 100 hours per week, and when she applied for a care package in the hope of receiving some financial support, it took six months to come through. The long-winded process often leaves carers with no support at all. That is not an isolated case; in fact, there are 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK.
I am proud that in Labour’s election manifesto we pledged to increase carers allowance for unpaid full-time carers to align the benefit with jobseeker’s allowance rates. That is a practical and sensible solution, which also seeks to highlight the valuable work that nurses, social care workers and carers do for our communities. Too often, they are sidelined and their efforts shunned. They need a Government for the many, not just the privileged few, to stand up for them.
Crucially, the knock-on effects of a social care crisis are felt acutely by the NHS. Indeed, this year’s general election was the ultimate litmus test for the social care policies presented by the Tories and the Labour party. Labour not only pledged to invest £8 billion to alleviate some of the immediate problems facing social care, but promised to build a new national care service bringing together health and social care, which we would implement following a cross-party consensus. In a civilised society, it is vital for us to pool the risk, and not allow the most vulnerable to fend for themselves in old age.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister launched a nasty campaign against older people the likes of which we have not seen in decades. Following their U-turn on the dementia tax, the Tories have now turned their attention to blaming and threatening councils with fines and sanctions—

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Andrew Selous: As part of my self-imposed induction into membership of the Health Committee, I undertook a tour of various institutions in my constituency in order to understand health and social care better, and learnt about the new concept of independent living schemes. Earlier this year the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh opened Priory View, which operates an independent living scheme in Dunstable. It presents a model of the way forward for social care. Older people are not isolated or lonely: there are exercise classes and loads of other activities. We need to get accommodation for such people right for the future, as Central Bedfordshire council has done.
I also visited Orchard Lodge care home in Tilsworth, and was struck by the very high standard of care. It has been rated “good” by the Care Quality Commission, and I was incredibly impressed by the dedication of all its staff. Another home, Rosewood Court in Dunstable, a beautiful building with wonderful facilities, closed this year because the owners could not find managers and staff to run it. That obviously caused a huge amount of stress and upset to residents and to their families, who had to move them at very short notice.
I also met some care providers in my constituency. I remember most clearly a conversation with a lady who ran one of the providers. She ran it very well, and is a former nurse who is working in care for all the right reasons. She said, “I would be too ashamed to go into a school to try to attract young people to come into my profession.” That is not right; we must not have such a situation. I asked, “What would it take for you to attract them?” She said, “A salary would be nice.” I asked, “How much?” She said, “£16,000 to £18,000 a year.” That is not much to ask for people looking after us in our old age.
On travel costs, I have said before and will say again that it should shame every one of us in this House that MPs get 45p a mile when we travel on parliamentary business, yet carers are often lucky to get 30p. What is good enough for an MP is good enough for a careworker. We need to sort that out.
Constituents have also raised the issue of the private subsidy of local authority places. It is not right that some people pay much more for the same place in order to subsidise local authorities. Constituents also tell me that they want even more rigour in the quality of care provided, so that we have real respect for those cared for and also real respect and proper career progression  for carers.
We must also break down the division between nursing and social care. Simon Stevens has in the past described these as two great tribes of the healthcare system.  There could, in a properly regulated way, often be more co-operation; they could do more together, which would be more efficient.
I have called for a number of steps that will cost money, and we need real honesty in this debate, because it will cost. I am very impressed by what I have read in both the Communities and Local Government Committee report on adult social care published in March this year and the House of Lords Select Committee report on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care. Both Committees of this Parliament have in reports published this year pointed us to what is happening in Germany and Japan. Those countries have mandatory social insurance mechanisms, which have been in place for a long time; the German system was put in place in 1994. It is not only Germany and Japan who have got their acts together on funding; so, too, have France and the Netherlands. This is not a recent problem; it did not arise in 2010 or 2015. It has been with us for a long time, and parties on both sides of the House have failed to grasp the nettle.
So I say to the two Ministers on the Front Bench, for whom I have the greatest respect—my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones)—that there must be urgency on this issue, and there is a willingness among our constituents for it to be grasped in a fair way. People are prepared to pay more; we know that there is public support for hypothecated taxes—people know that what they pay is going to look after them later in life.
Some of the social insurance systems—those in Germany and Japan in particular— can point the way forward. So I say to the Ministers, “Get on an aeroplane now, go to Japan, go to Germany, and do the preparatory work, so that when we have the Green Paper in January, we can have some really good ideas, and we can grasp the nettle, take this forward and give people the care they deserve.”

Mohammad Yasin: It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).
Before my election in June I was the portfolio holder for adult services on Bedford Borough Council. I saw the strain that my team of officers was placed under every day, in trying to meet rapidly growing demand with rapidly diminishing resources. The “solution” to this crisis that the Government put forward during the election campaign was astonishing. The dementia tax is not a good idea that was unpopular; it is a terrible idea that did nothing to address the immediate problem of severe underfunding.
Despite already making cuts of £90 million since 2010, Bedford Borough Council needs to identify further cuts of £27.5 million by 2020. In 2015 the grant received from central Government was £30.1 million; that will fall to £5.8 million by 2019-20, and is falling by £6.8 million next year alone. The social care precept is not a proper solution at all, and it is not nearly enough to bridge the gap. It is an inadequate sticking plaster for an ongoing funding shortfall, and a token gesture that pushes the responsibility away from where it really lies, which is with central Government.
A report published last year by the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund on cuts to social care for over-65s found that access to care depends increasingly on what people can afford and where they live, rather than on what they need. The report found that underinvestment in primary and community NHS services is undermining the policy objective of keeping people independent and out of residential care. It also found that the Care Act 2014 has created new demands and expectations, with no extra funding to meet them.
The report also said that local authorities have little room to make further savings, and most will soon be unable to meet basic statutory duties. Bedford Borough Council is close to not being able to meet those duties. Fining local authorities for delayed transfers of care will do nothing to help address the problem, and will worsen the funding crisis. The Government’s response to the social care crisis that we know exists in every local authority area up and down the country is hopelessly inadequate to deal with the levels of demand.
The Government have no answers to the social care crisis they have created. The only change needed now is a change of Government.

Marcus Fysh: Our ageing population is undoubtedly one of the challenges of our age, and I am proud of what we are doing locally in Somerset to be in the vanguard in this country on the integration of health and social care, which is an essential part of meeting the challenge. Some of our care providers have faced incredibly big challenges over recent years. The rise in the national living wage has put a lot of pressure on their budgets, as have rising pension costs and rising regulatory fees, the apprenticeship levy, and the normal inflation in rent and other costs. It is my understanding that our current council fee rates for care cover only 70% of the costs.
We also need to focus very carefully on the issue of sleep-in shifts and the national living wage being applied to that. I do not think it is sustainable for us to allow that, and we should try to legislate against it. Care providers in my area have informed me that it is not the same as waking duty hours.
Somerset Care is a well-run not-for-profit company that is performing very well and is a key part of the provision of care in Somerset. It is having to hand back some of its contracts from the local authority because they are underfunded, and we have seen 445 fewer beds in the south-west year on year in 2017.
Local authority funding is a factor. It has been drastically reduced, and I am keen to ensure that Somerset is, if at all possible, a pilot in the retention of business rates. I am a firm believer in giving local areas the revenue opportunities they need to be able to innovate and attract more business in various ways, to be able to fund some of these undoubted needs in future.
The sector must provide newer facilities. Some 85% of care home stock in the UK is now more than 50 years old. We need capital funding solutions to be able to lever in private capital. On current parameters, new care homes need at least 70% of self-funders to have the required return on investment. We also need a bigger  workforce, and Members have talked about some of the issues in that regard. We need 53% more people in this sector by 2030.
In terms of solutions, several people have spoken about social insurance, and I think that that is probably the best way to try to pool risk. However, I do not think this is a risk that should be pooled across the whole of society; that would not be fair. We should also incentivise savings schemes better and give tax breaks, and perhaps VAT exemptions, to the providers of new-build care homes. I have mentioned integration before, and we have seen the vanguard in Yeovil: getting patients out of acute beds and into social care settings earlier can save up to £300 a day, which is very encouraging.
I have already mentioned sleep-in shifts and local dynamism, and I am mindful of the fact that others want to speak, but I want to conclude by saying that I welcome the Government’s paying attention to this issue. It is undoubtedly one we need to look at. This is a pressing matter, and I urge the Government to really motor along on this one. This is urgent for some of those providers who are facing serious situations. I do not believe that the answer is higher taxes, either at national or local level, and I do not believe in politicising the issue, as some Opposition Members have been tempted to do. Essentially, we need innovation. We need to create the conditions for the private sector to work with providers to give our older generations the support that they need.

Tracy Brabin: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this most important debate. I would like to thank my friends on the Opposition Front Benches for bringing the subject of social care to the House today. Social care must be treated as the national priority it rightfully is. It is a vital public service that allows people in every one of our constituencies to live their lives in the way they want. The system supports older people, those living with mental health issues and people with physical and learning disabilities. This should be the least that we owe people in our country, but instead there is simply not enough money in the system. The Local Government Association has said that social care services nationally are facing an annual £2.3 billion funding gap by 2020.
Of course, some areas are affected more than others, and funding pressure is being felt keenly in my constituency of Batley and Spen and in our local authority of Kirklees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) has said, a third of the entire local authority budget is spent on adult social care. This is a local authority that has had to effectively cut half its budget since 2010 and is the second worst funded metropolitan council in the country. Senior councillors have openly warned that they might need to stop cutting the grass or collecting the bins in order to meet their social care requirements laid out in the Care Act 2014. Of course it is completely right that social care takes priority over other public services, but I am sure Members will agree that councils should in a position to provide more and better services to local people, rather than constantly cutting back.
Let us take the case of the father of a constituent of mine. He is currently in Dewsbury District Hospital, and he is ready to be discharged. He has had a stroke,  and he also suffers from vascular dementia and a condition called sundowning, which means that his dementia symptoms become more severe in the evening. Because of a lack of funding, there is no specialist provision locally that can cope with his complex needs. This family are faced with the prospect of their relative having to go out of the area, even as far away as Sheffield, for care. We have to find a national solution to this national issue.
The Care Quality Commission’s report earlier this month laid out the reasons for action in black and white. Only 2% of social care services were rated as outstanding, with 41% requiring improvement. A quarter of services are failing on safety and there are nearly 4,000 fewer nursing home beds now than there were in March 2015. This is at a time when demand is rising. In England, 1.2 million people do not receive the social care they need, which is up 48% since 2010.
The search for the much needed solution has to begin with getting the funding right, because the system’s future depends on it. Clearly, one way of not getting the funding right was illustrated by what the governing party put forward at the general election. Its intention to implement a “dementia tax” without limits went down like a lead balloon in my constituency and plenty of others. We have to assume that that policy is off the table—I am sure that Ministers will be eager to confirm that today—but that does not mean that the Government can keep treading water. Social care is a vital public service, and having a hole of this magnitude at the heart of Government policy is irresponsible. We need action. Instead of writing to councils to threaten fines and the withdrawal of funding because of unmet targets on delayed transfers of care, let us have a plan to remedy the £6.3 billion-worth of cuts since 2010. The quality of care needs to be rising instead of falling. Social care is there for the elderly and the vulnerable, and the least we should expect is a decent system that works for everyone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to cut the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes as a lot of speakers are still waiting to get in.

Helen Whately: I am sure that all of us who have been out and about with care workers in our constituencies have found the experience not only informative but inspiring. I certainly had a brilliant experience when I went out and about with a care worker in my patch. I saw the enormous compassion in the care that she provided and how incredibly hard she worked. It was a tough job, but a rewarding one. As many Members have said, however, the work is not well enough paid, there is no career structure and there is not enough support for carers in their day-to-day work.
Everyone in the Chamber today recognises that the current system is not fair and not working. It is not fair that people can get care for free if they can stay living in their home, but if they have to go into a care home, they might be left with only £14,000 of savings. Most people would much rather be cared for at home, but that is not  always possible. The present system therefore discriminates against those who cannot stay at home to be cared for, and that is simply not fair. We need to bear that in mind as we talk about potential solutions. Let us not pretend for a moment that the current system is fair.
The system is also not working. Around 30% of the people in hospital in my constituency do not need to be there. They would be better off out of hospital, but there is often no outside support available for them. Delayed transfers of care are an ongoing challenge. There are also people in care homes because of the shortage of domiciliary care. We have to address what is substantially a funding challenge: there is simply not enough money going into care.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), said that she was going to give us Labour’s solutions to the problem. I listened carefully to her speech, but I was disappointed that she spent only about one minute of her 24-minute speech talking about potential solutions. I am afraid that I did not really hear any solutions—

Barbara Keeley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Whately: I am really sorry, but I cannot take any interventions. I have been asked not to.
Most significantly, the hon. Lady does not have a plan for how to pay for all this. It all comes down to how we are going to pay for improving access to care, and the party opposite simply does not have a plan. As for cross-party working, that would be fantastic but judging by some of the language I have heard from Labour Members, I do not think that many of them are ready to work together on this. I encourage the Government to get on with the job of proposing a better, sustainably funded, care system so that our constituents can get the care that they need.

Faisal Rashid: Under the Conservative Government, social care is in crisis. That is clear to almost everyone in this House, and to the 1.2 million people across the country whose complex needs are not being met. In fact, it would appear that the only people it is not clear to are those in the Conservative Government. Anyone following either of the Secretaries of State responsible for social care over the conference period would have struggled to find any reference to the crisis, or indeed to social care. I am therefore pleased that the Opposition have used this day to bring this incredibly important issue to the Floor of the House, because we are faced with a complete Government policy vacuum.
Social care provisions have been neglected and gutted by central Government. By March 2018, £6.3 billion will have been cut from the adult social care budget during eight years of Conservative-led Government. Over the same period, the number of people with some form of unmet need will have increased by 48%. That is no coincidence. The Conservative Government’s failure to tackle the social care crisis is having a hugely damaging impact on elderly and disabled people in our society, pushing them into increasingly vulnerable and precarious positions where they are not receiving adequate or appropriate care.
Government cuts to local authority budgets mean that councils are simply no longer able to provide the necessary level of care. In the first five months of the fiscal year, 48% of authorities have reported home care providers handing back contracts, and Warrington Borough Council is no exception. Indeed, two providers have already handed back significant contracts this year, so the council is short of approximately 500 hours of home care on any given day, resulting in delayed transfers of care. Members will be aware that the Government’s response to the delays has been to punish local authorities fiscally for not meeting unrealistic targets by withholding funding and threatening extortionate fines. If the Government are not prepared to invest in essential care for the health and wellbeing of the elderly and disabled in society, what are they prepared to invest in? During the 2017 general election campaign, the Prime Minister infamously U-turned on her flagship social care policy. Five months later, she has still to provide us with any alternative, while other members of her Cabinet have yet to rule out the discredited dementia tax policy.

Kelly Tolhurst: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate on a subject that is vital to many in our communities and one that is close to my heart. It should almost go without saying that those working in social care deserve huge respect and thanks for their outstanding work on a daily basis. My role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social work presents a real opportunity to champion the sector and to work with colleagues to get the best deal for it.
No one doubts the importance of funding for important public care sectors, but the Opposition do not seem to realise that money alone does not solve everything. Addressing working conditions is hugely important for maintaining continuity and retaining workers. We should be looking at cutting the bureaucracy that increases the organisational work in these caring roles and at allowing them to do more of what they want and are trained to do. We should also consider how technology can help people in the sector. Medway Council has been looking at that in relation to caring for people in their homes, and some of our housing associations have worked with the council. These are ideas, and I am pleased to speak to colleagues from across the House instead of just throwing money at the problem, creating a financial black hole, and hoping that something comes out in the end.
If Opposition Members want to talk about money, they will surely recognise the additional £1 billion made available this year on top of the £2 billion offered to councils in the Budget. Since 2015, councils have had access to a total of over £9 billion of funding over a three-year period. We have also introduced the toughest standards regime in the world, and it is reassuring that the CQC rated 80% of social care settings as good or outstanding. Again, this is about ideas, not just funding, which is why an open consultation will be held on how to reform the system to drive sustainability and improve quality. In my area, Medway Maritime Hospital was struggling, but it is clear that change has been down to leadership, management and innovation in that setting.
In comparison, Labour’s record does not give Opposition Members a high horse from which to look down on us. In government, they failed to deliver effective policies  over a long time. Their advisers even came out in public to admit that they failed to solve the problems of social care funding, saying that it was
“the largest piece of unfinished social reform”
during Labour’s time in government, which I remind the House was 13 years. Even during the most recent election, promises were made, but we heard no plans from the shadow Minister for what Labour would do, so I support my Government in holding the consultation and wish it good luck.

James Frith: It is a pleasure to speak in this Opposition day debate, and I thank colleagues for bringing it to the House. I pay tribute to the work of Carers UK and the Bury Carers Centre in my constituency in advocating and providing a voice for Britain’s 6.8 million carers, almost 20,000 of whom work in Bury. In fact, it is a mark of the link between my office and the Bury Carers Centre that Ummrana Farooq came to help me with my constituency work and run my office—such is our commitment to the Bury Carers Centre.
The number of carers has grown by 1 million nationally over the past 15 years. Carers now provide care worth £132 billion every year, which is propping up a social care system in crisis. If we acknowledge the silent wards in bedrooms and front rooms and the people being looked after by loved ones, the crisis would be deeper still. Under the Tories, 400,000 fewer older people now have access to publicly funded social care and not because need has reduced; it has of course risen. Age UK says that 1.2 million older people in England now have unmet care needs. The Government’s welfare policies have had an extremely detrimental impact on carers. Some 2 million people have given up work to care for relatives. The low level of the carer’s allowance—£62 a week if caring for someone for more than 35 hours  a week—and the freeze on many benefits combine into a toxic force against our carers and their communities.
I want to progress the debate. As a Greater Manchester MP—it is good to hear so many Greater Manchester MPs speak in this debate—I understand that there is a role for hospice care in the social care offer. We need a holistic approach, and we need practical arrangements, not just new money. We need three-year budgets up front. Hospices can play a vital role if the patient tariff can move from the ward to the hospice. They can offer vital respite care provision in towns such as Bury. Bury hospice has empty beds and rooms that would cost a lot less than a hospital bed for the night, so I urge the Government to look at the patient tariff. Have they considered the supporting role that hospices might play in the social care system? Come and look at Bury hospice and the work we intend to do with our Pennine colleagues.

Huw Merriman: East Sussex has the second-highest proportion of over 85-year-olds in the country, and that number is expected to grow by 14% by 2021. As for the care homes in my constituency, 55 of them are rated good, but unfortunately 29 require improvement and one is inadequate. Not only does East Sussex have a large population of people who need to be looked after, but the system is clearly not working as  it should. In my constituency, 33% of the working-age population are on the living wage, so to continue to expect council tax payers to fund the social care model will not help them get on in life and will not help intergenerational fairness. I was therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk at the Dispatch Box about the short-term impact of the Government’s £2 billion announced in the previous Budget and the council tax levy. However, due to the situation with council tax payers and the small tax base that I have in East Sussex, I support her when she talks about the need for medium and long-term reform.
In the medium term, East Sussex’s model is to work as a Better Together partnership, where the council, the NHS trust and clinical commissioning groups all work as one. Indeed, they are all on one email and have emailed me over the past couple of days about what can be done, which shows that they really are working together.
As I have mentioned, our accident and emergency team is the most improved in the last six months because the Better Together partnership is now working. People are now getting out of hospital earlier and, indeed, are not having the trips, slips and falls that cause them to go to A&E. The model works well.
However, I have one ask of the Minister, who has a background in compliance. The NHS trust is managed by NHS Improvement and the clinical commissioning group is managed by NHS England, and the regulators are not working together. Those organisations therefore sometimes struggle to work together, such as on billing, contractual challenge and payments, because the regulators are telling them different things. I would like a single accountable regulator for the entire sphere, and I hope that my leaders will be able to meet the Minister to discuss their challenges and what can be done.
Cross-party consensus is surely the way forward. I hope the Opposition will note that I have not once attacked them. I have heard some fantastic speeches. In particular, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) talked passionately about what we can do together. In reality, we will have no majority for these five years, and social care will be reformed only if we work together. Please, can we do so?

Laura Smith: Social care has been pushed into a state of emergency. A report by the CQC in July found that one in four social care services is now failing on safety grounds, with at least one care home closing every week. Only 2% of providers are regarded as outstanding.
In Cheshire East, almost a third of care homes have been rated inadequate or as requiring improvement. Imagine the uproar if Ofsted published such statistics for schools. The CQC’s chief inspector, Andrea Sutcliffe, admits that adult social care is still approaching a “tipping point.”
The only reason the social care service has not completely fallen to pieces is because it is being held together by an incredible and skilled workforce who are swimming tirelessly against the tide. A recent Unison survey of homecare workers found that more than three in five  are given only 15 minutes, or less, to provide personal care. Three quarters end up rushing and have to compromise the dignity or wellbeing of those they look after. Nearly a third are unable to wash, bathe or shower the people for whom they care.
I am always lost for words when I speak to care workers in my constituency. It takes a certain kind of person to be a care worker, and imagine how it must feel for that type of person to be forced to leave somebody for whom they care before they have had time to wash them or to help them eat. To make matters worse, many work on poverty pay, a consequence of the chronic underfunding of this service.
The National Audit Office has stated that 220,000 care workers in England are being paid below the minimum wage—the national minimum wage, not the Government’s living wage. Care workers in my constituency have been underpaid for years by Cheshire East Council, which is breaching minimum wage regulations despite having a policy to pay all workers at least the local living wage. Those workers have yet to receive back pay for the duration that they have been underpaid, and it is unclear whether that back pay will lift them to a living wage.
Only yesterday, a care worker contacted my office because he did not know where else to turn. He described how staff morale is at rock bottom, with many care workers suffering from poor mental health, worrying about their job security and relying on food banks and payday loans. They are too scared to take time off sick and unable to afford annual leave. He described how care workers feel that they have no voice and receive no respect. Is it any wonder that more than 900 care workers are leaving their job every single day?

Vicky Ford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the extremely important subject of how we care for the elderly and the most vulnerable people in our society. I start by declaring an interest. I come from an NHS family, and the NHS is in my blood. My husband is a consultant oncologist, and the work that he and others do in the NHS is saving lives and ensuring that we are all living longer. I thank our NHS.
It is because we are all living longer that we feel this pressure on our NHS and social services. I am an Essex MP, and in Essex it is predicted that in the next decade the number of over-65s will increase by 40%, the number of over-85s will increase by 50% and the number of over-95s will more than double. Also, a growing number of people have complex needs, such as diabetes, dementia and other conditions. In the next three years, the number of adults in Essex with physical disabilities will increase by more than 7%.
In England, 80% of our care homes are rated good or outstanding by the CQC, but we need to consider the long-term way in which we fund and care for our growing elderly population. Stuff is being done on the ground. We know that the NHS and social care are linked, and having integrated health and social care discharge teams is working in Essex and is helping to speed up transfers.
Essex plans to have 2,000 supported independent living units, which will help vulnerable people to stay in their own communities for longer. We can do more on  caring for the carers. We are introducing nurse apprenticeships, which I hope we will soon see in Chelmsford—that is excellent.
This country is also doing phenomenal work in science and research. Some £4.7 billion is being invested in science and research, more than any Government have invested in the past 40 years. We are leading the world in areas such as genomics and gene editing, which will radically change personalised medicines and will mean that many people will not need to live with certain conditions.
Although those changes will all help in either the short term or the long term, we need to look at funding now, which is why the Government are right to call this consultation. We need to consider what is happening in other counties, such as Germany, Japan and the Nordic countries, and we need to look at savings models, insurance schemes and equity release. We need to work with our local authorities. Let us have this consultation, and let us work together.

Mike Amesbury: The benchmark of a civil society is how it treats its elderly, its vulnerable and those who need support the most. Those are the values that underpin the outstanding work that happens every day in my constituency, Weaver Vale, and in constituencies across the country.
Whether care workers, nurses, social workers or volunteers who look after their neighbours, these people are motivated by a simple principle. As a country, we should care for, and care about, everyone in our society. Sadly, the reason we are having this debate today is that, when it comes to sharing and showing support for those values, this Government have let down the very people who deliver them and have failed those who rely on them.
Year after year, as they delivered their cuts, the Government that claimed that we were “all in it together”—remember that one—took aim at the most vulnerable instead of protecting them. Councils in my constituency have seen their budgets cut by 43%, with the most vulnerable struggling to access the care they need. Like many former councillors in this Chamber, I saw at first hand what cuts did to services and the effect on the people who relied on them. Now, as an MP, I witness this all too often. That effect was ignored by this Government again and again, until the Prime Minister was finally forced to listen. Even then, the action offered failed to deliver what was needed, putting the burden once again on local councils and residents, rather than on Downing Street, the only place that can deliver the proper funding needed to rectify this crisis.
The good news is that with proper, decent funding we can make a difference, by providing our amazing social care staff with the support they so desperately need. That is why we need a Labour Government. Earlier this month, I met the integrated care team in Cheshire West and Chester. Based at a local medical centre, they bring together district nurses, care workers, social workers, occupational therapists and co-ordination staff, providing excellent integrated care. The innovation and dedication of the team is exemplary, but unfortunately the funding is not. The workload exceeds staffing resources. The team needs six district nurses, but it typically operates with three or four. Recruitment is a struggle, and there is a shortage of carers in the area. Patients can be ready  to leave hospital but no care packages are in place because of the lack of funding. This is the consequence of years of cuts and of pay freezes, zero-hours contracts—

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the contributions from Members on both sides of the House today in this extremely important debate. I have personal experience of this, as my 80-year-old mother is in the early stages of dementia. She lives in Cumbria, many hundreds of miles from this place, and I have often had to run from these Benches to take phone calls from the local authority services in the past few weeks. I have seen for myself the experience that many of our constituents and their families are going through. I pay tribute to those who are at the sharp end; I have seen some fantastic examples of caring people in Cumbria and in my constituency. So I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for seizing this difficult and challenging issue. She was brave enough to talk about something that has been an issue for many, many years. Opposition Members have been very negative and critical of us. They are right to criticise our election campaign—not everything was right in it, and there are problems now—but I welcome the calls to work together. I really want to see us work together across this House to deal with this issue.
I make one plea to Opposition Members: please do not talk about a dementia tax, as there is no such thing. When I spoke to people in my constituency, I found that they were very concerned about the challenges that face their families and people in their communities, and this language was terrifying to them. It obscured the fact that care is not free now. Currently, people are being forced to sell their homes and they do face difficult challenges. We are right to have this debate, but please let us not do it in a way that frightens people who are vulnerable already.
We do face some big challenges and it is very important that we get the health and social care sector working together. I welcome the fact that in Redditch £100 million is being put into our accident and emergency in the Alex and we have a new elderly and frail unit, which helps to speed up the process of people leaving hospital when they need to go. I wanted to make a number of points, but time is short, so let me say that it is right to look at a balance of solutions.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said about people who are wealthy and can contribute. We need to consider how can we have a grown-up, intelligent and mature debate about that, because we are facing a large demand on the public purse to fund this in the next few years. The Labour party put forward a manifesto in 1997 to deal with this issue, but it was not resolved. We have grasped the nettle. I thank our Front-Bench team for bringing this forward. Let us have the consultation and deal with  this for our constituents.

Preet Kaur Gill: We have heard that the Local Government Association has estimated that adult social care faces a £2.3 billion funding gap by 2020, and the reasons for that are  wide-ranging. They include a growing population requesting adult social care support, cuts to local authority budgets in recent years and increases in costs to providers, including the national living wage and costs relating to sleep-in arrangements. In addition, the adult social care provider market is increasingly vulnerable, with 69% of councils reporting to ADASS that they have been affected by providers ceasing trading or handing back contracts. That can have a massive impact on the lives of people relying on this care. These short-term pressures must be addressed with additional funding, alongside allowing local areas to use additional funds in the way that addresses their local health and care issues.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who made a good point about the sustainability of providers, an issue to which I shall return shortly.
I was pleased to see the Communities and Local Government Committee report on adult social care listed as a document relevant to the motion. I serve on the Committee and contributed to that report. We established what I think we are all aware of: there is a demographic time bomb with respect to social care. The King’s Fund said that there are hundreds of thousands of people in their 80s and 90s and that the number grew by third in the past 10 years and will double in the next 20 years.
The problem is not going to go away and there is no doubt that, as a result, the system is under pressure. This is about not only the overall numbers of people affected but the individual devastation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), referred to “catastrophic care costs”, which is a fair way to put it. It cannot be right that one person and their family can be affected in such a catastrophic way if they have long-term care needs such as dementia. We need to consider the impact on their family and the financial consequences of those catastrophic costs.
It is not right for either the Government or the individual to have a blank cheque on this issue, so we need to look for a different solution. When most of us see a potentially catastrophic risk, we insure ourselves against it. As part of its adult social care inquiry, the Select Committee visited Berlin to look at the German system. Adult social care in Germany was previously funded by local government, but a social insurance system was introduced in 1994. Every person has to pay into the system, although there is a threshold so that low earners are taken care of and do not have to pay. Everyone else pays around 1.2% of their salary, with their employer also contributing. It is a bit like auto-enrolment, but for social care.
The system in Germany has been successful. It was introduced with cross-party agreement, which is what has been called for today by Government and Opposition Members alike and which I absolutely support. In Germany, if care is needed, the money paid out of insurance policies can be paid to family members, so the social fabric element of social care is catered for, because more  families look after their relatives when they are in need—they are not unpaid carers; they are actually paid. The German system helps the provision of the right kind of support from the right people, and I really hope that the Government will consider it as a permanent, sustainable, scalable and simple solution to this problem.

Wendy Morton: As the Minister clearly set out at the start of her speech, it is right and proper that we recognise all those who work in the social care sector. In fact, my own mum was a home carer for many years. She would go out early every morning and late of an evening to look after the people she was supporting. It is right that we support and recognise not only those who work in the sector, but those unpaid carers who quietly get on with looking after those they love and care for at home. That work often goes unrecognised.
There are several care homes in my constituency, including Pelsall Hall and the Hawthorns, which are part of the whole range of homes that provide social care and independent living for those who really need it. There are also many charities and organisations that provide invaluable support—in particular, the Alzheimer’s Society, which was recently kind enough to run a dementia friends session in my constituency.
Aldridge-Brownhills has an ageing demographic, with 27% of the population aged between 45 and 64 and 21.6% aged over 65, so it is part of the challenge that we face as a country. Not just in my constituency but right across the country, the ageing population presents us with probably one of the greatest challenges we face, and it is one that we cannot leave alone.
We have heard how successive Governments have kicked this can down the road, and I have heard a lot of charges against this Government from Labour Members. They may well protest, but they, too, kicked the can down the road. Labour promised a social care solution in its 1997 manifesto, yet despite a royal commission, two Green Papers and a pledge to address the issue in the 2007 comprehensive spending review, it left government without having delivered.
Today, we have had many good contributions. The one thing that has come across loud and clear is the need for us all to engage in this consultation and to work together, because it is a challenge that is facing the whole country. I really hope that we can find a system that not only works today, but is ready and fit for the future.

Christine Jardine: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. With the 70th anniversary of the welfare state approaching, it is appropriate to reflect on its promise of care from the cradle to the grave and to say that, in this country at the moment, we are perhaps getting that wrong.
We have heard much about the problems with funding and the delays in transfers. Perhaps the most important thing we can do, apart from raising money by putting a penny in the pound on tax as my party advocates, is to stop treating social care and the NHS as a political football. Perhaps it is time that we establish a cross-party  health and social care convention to carry out a comprehensive review of the longer-term sustainability of the health and social care finances and workforce and the practicalities of general integration. Perhaps that way we might see a more efficient social care system that is fit for purpose.

Andrew Gwynne: We have had a good and full debate. I wish to thank the 25 Back-Bench colleagues who have contributed to it, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), for Leigh (Jo Platt), for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid), for Bury North (James Frith), for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
Clearly, on both sides of the House, there is a shared concern over the Government’s inaction on addressing the growing crisis in social care. It has been illuminating to hear the thinking of the Social Care Minister in her opening speech. I am astounded that a Minister of the Crown thinks that austerity is the mother of invention.

Jackie Doyle-Price: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: Let me finish. I will let the hon. Lady in if she wants to apologise.
It is a play on words of the old English proverb that necessity is the mother of invention. Let me tell the Minister that she might be quoting a councillor, but she did not deny that it was her view, too. There is nothing necessary about austerity. It is a political choice, and it is a choice that is driving up inequality and unfairness.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I need to remind the hon. Gentleman that the only money that we can spend is that that we collect from taxpayers. I pay tribute to the innovation shown by local authority leaders who deliver better outcomes with less money. That is good value for money and should be celebrated by Opposition Members, too.

Andrew Gwynne: I pay tribute to councillors who are making very difficult decisions under very tightly constrained financial situations. I remind the hon. Lady that, yes, we can only spend money that we have, but it is a question of priority about how we spend it. That is why we set out in the election exactly how we would use the money in a better, smarter, fairer and more equal way.
As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to our constituents to defend the services on which many rely and the services that are there to protect us all should we find ourselves in need of support—care homes for  the elderly, child protection and support for parents with disabled children. It is the duty of all Members to protect the principle on which our welfare state was founded. All people deserve a life of dignity. As shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I speak to council leaders, to councillors, to council staff and to organisations delivering public services, and they are all telling me the same thing. They are not only unable to cope financially; they have lost confidence in this Government. The country needs fresh ideas and leadership. Instead, it is suffering from the weakest and most divided Government in memory. One thing is clear: this Government are facing a looming crisis of trust in local government. Many within the local government sector, including the Tory chair of the LGA, had hoped that the Prime Minister would use her Tory conference speech to announce new measures to help to alleviate the pressures on adult social care. But I, like many, think they were left wanting for leadership.
Our ageing and growing population means that there is more demand for social care. An increasing number of people will need support with their mental health, a physical disability or learning and social needs. Skills for Care has predicted that we will need an additional 220,000 to 470,000 workers by 2025 due to population growth and ageing, but local government will be unable to meet this demand under current and projected budgets.
We do not have to wait until 2025 to witness a crisis. Across the country right now, our health and social care system is straining at the seams. Last year, councils spent over £366 million more than they had predicted on their social care budgets. That is double the overspend reported in 2015-16, and it is not sustainable. The only response that we receive from this Government is the long-awaited consultation, which a Minister first promised would be published in the new year. Now it is suggested that it might even be delayed until next summer.
When will our communities see action to help the one in eight elderly people who will not receive the care they need, such as help getting dressed, going to the toilet and washing themselves—basic dignity for those most in need? When will we see an end to the closure of children’s centres that are providing support to families in need? Right now, one children’s centre closes every week. When will people no longer have to live in fear in their own homes? Cuts to care hours mean that a fall in the home could leave somebody trapped on the floor, unable to get up for several hours. If Ministers had discussed these issues with the sector, they would know about them. They would know that the sector is warning that social care faces a perfect storm of staffing shortages, rising demand and a lack of funding made worse by this Government’s policy on transfer of care.
I recently asked the Minister whether his Department had conducted an assessment to ensure that local authorities had the financial and staffing capacity to comply with their statutory social care duties. I was told that these were decisions for local authorities, not for the Government. Well, I have done the work for the Minister. The number of social care workers has fallen each quarter for five years to its lowest level since 1999. It has decreased almost 8% in the last year alone. Councils face a £2.3 billion annual social care funding gap by 2020. With this black hole in the Budget, I am unable to understand the justification for fining cash-strapped councils for failing   to meet transfer targets. The Minister denied that it is a fine. But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck; and this is a fine.
The Government are at odds with the whole sector. As the LGA has also argued, I am unable to see how this will not make the financial pressures affecting social care even worse. Ministers have failed to understand the depth of the problem with delayed transfer. Too many patients are stuck in hospital who could be better cared for elsewhere, but ensuring that patients can be cared for in the right settings requires investment in not only social care, but intermediate care, reablement services, and sheltered and supported housing. Added to that, we know that there are issues about pay too.
I urge the House to recognise that this problem does not fall on party lines: these cuts hurt all our communities, whichever side of the House we sit on. The Evening Standard reported this week on a new poll. Three quarters of Conservative councillors said that long-term funding for children’s social care was a major concern. Over half said the Government’s cuts had made it difficult to deliver legally required services. So this is a crisis in not just adult social care but children’s services.
History will not look kindly on a Government that promised so little and delivered even less. That is why I urge Members on both sides of the House to vote to support Labour’s motion. Abstention is a cop-out—join us in the Lobby.

Marcus Jones: This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on one of the most important social issues and challenges we face in our country.
Delivering good-quality care for our most vulnerable people is a clear priority for this Government. To ensure local government has the resources to fund adult social care through to 2019-20, the Government have given councils access to £9.25 billion of dedicated funding for adult social care over the next three years.
Beyond the immediate term, there is also the need to address the challenges of social care for our ageing population. Therefore, the Government will bring forward proposals for consultation, to build widespread support for reform. The consultation will set out options to improve the social care system, put it on a more secure financial footing, support people and their families to prepare for old age, and address issues related to the quality of care and the variation in practice.
Overall, local government spent £14.9 billion in 2016-17 on adult social care—up by £500 million from 2015-16, and over £500 million more than budgeted for. This year, councils are budgeted to spend £15.6 billion.
The Government continue to provide local government with the additional resource it needs to deliver care. At the spring Budget, an additional £2 billion of funding in England was announced, of which £1 billion has been provided in 2017-18. That was in addition to the resource made available in the local government finance settlement, where we provided £240 million for adult  social care. It was also in addition to the £2.5 billion  put through local authorities in the improved better  care fund.
Alongside Government funding, more flexibility has been provided. Local government has been able to raise more income through the adult social care precept, with the flexibility to increase it by 3% this year. That adult social care flexibility was subsequently used by 147 out of 152 social care authorities, with 109 using the full allocation, or close to the full allocation, of 3%. I should point out that it is also down to the Government that, overall, council tax remains lower in real terms than it was in 2010.
In terms of the integration of health and social care, we should remember that the better care fund is the first national mandatory integration policy. We should not shy away from the fact that integration is not easy, but the Government are supportive of the best-performing systems, where local government and the NHS work together to tackle the difficult issue of delayed transfers of care. We understand that delayed transfers of care are only one part of what authorities deal with to deliver social care in communities up and down the country, but we also understand that improving working between local government and the NHS is absolutely key to delivering better joined-up care for local people.
It is also right that, in November, we will consider a review of the 2018-19 allocations of social care funding provided at the spring Budget 2017 for areas that are not performing well. We expect that that would encompass only a small number of local authorities, although we are clear that the funding will remain with local government to be used for adult social care. We also favour, if needed, the option that places conditions on how a proportion of the 2018-19 funding is used to support an authority’s delayed transfer of care performance.

Barbara Keeley: Will the Minister give way?

Marcus Jones: I will in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress and mention some of the people who have spoken in the debate.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) finally hit the nail on the head right at the end of his speech in saying that we needed to approach this important, difficult and delicate subject in a non-partisan way. I was very disappointed, though, that 98% of his speech was spent on the politics of fear and, in some ways, misinformation. That was very much out of kilter with much of the debate across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chairman of the Health Committee, made some very important points. She was absolutely right first to pay tribute to careworkers and carers—that is absolutely the right thing for us to do. She mentioned the remuneration of care work, as did other hon. Members across the House. It is important to point out that careworking is an extremely important job. The national living wage, which was £5.93 an hour in 2010, is now £7.50 an hour, and lower-paid workers pay £1,200 less in income tax than they did in 2010. We are well on the path to rewarding careworkers far more than they have been in the past, although we would acknowledge that there is more to do.

Barbara Keeley: If the Minister values care, would he comment on untrained members of the public being offered £1,000 a month to rent out rooms as an alternative to care for patients recovering from surgery? Do he and his Government support that, because it is frightening from a safeguarding point of view?

Marcus Jones: It is important that we always have workers who are trained, and we are providing care in good-quality settings. We heard several times that 80% of our care homes are providing quality of care that is either good or outstanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned the integration of health and social care, and the importance of the health service in the context of the review that is going to be done. She spoke about future planning of the workforce, which is also very important.
The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made some very sensible points and comments about the politics of dealing with long-term funding of social care, and said that it does not serve people or their carers if we are partisan. Even so, she slipped into a bit of partisanship towards the end, showing how difficult this situation is. On the whole, however, she made some very sensible points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) was right to point out that this is a long-standing issue that many Governments over decades have ducked. She mentioned the situation in Derbyshire with her council, which seems to have been left a difficult legacy by its Labour predecessor. I am certainly willing to meet her to discuss that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) mentioned the positive impact that the £2 billion of additional funding that was announced in the Budget for the adult social care precept has had in his area. He also made a sensible point about the potential for devolution to bring more integration between health and social care. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said that health and social care is not just a responsibility for national Government because there is a responsibility for us all, particularly at a local level within the health service and in our local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised the importance of suitable accommodation to enable older people to live independently and help us to avoid many of the healthcare costs that we face. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) mentioned the pressure that the national living wage puts on the system. It is quite right that we pay our careworkers more, and that is why we have given councils access to up to £9.25 billion of extra funding by 2020.
Many positive speeches were made during the debate, but unfortunately I have not got time to mention them all. The problems in social care have developed over   many decades. The Government are absolutely right to recognise the challenges of adult social care and tackle them head-on. That is why we have provided further funding up to 2020. We need to address the issue, and that is why we will work across the sector to bring about change and a sustainable solution for the future so that the most vulnerable in our society can get the care that they deserve and need.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to a funding proposal for social care which would have no cap on care costs and would include the value of homes in the means test for care at home; further notes that this proposal would leave people with a maximum of only £100,000 of assets; calls on the Government to confirm its intention not to proceed with this commitment; and further calls on the Government to remove the threat to withdraw social care funding from, and stop fines on, local authorities for Delayed Transfers of Care and to commit to the extra funding needed to close the social care funding gap for 2017 and the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament.

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again we see the Government refusing to vote on a motion—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Lady at the Dispatch Box is saying, and she is speaking to me.

Barbara Keeley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again, we see the Government abstaining—refusing to vote on a motion tabled by the Opposition. This time, we have been debating vital issues: the funding crisis in social care and whether the Government will confirm their intention not to proceed with the policy for funding social care that they put forward, frightening people, during the general election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has just described this Government as the “weakest and most divided” for many years. May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for this weak and divided Government to pick and choose when they will vote on matters that are raised in this House?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady has taken this opportunity to make the points that she wishes to make, and the House has heard them. She knows, and the House knows, that the Government’s decision on what they answer, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box and how individual Members of this House choose to vote—or not—are not matters for the Chair. We will have no more points of order on that; it is not a point  of order.

Supported Housing

Eleanor Laing: Order. People must not walk in front of the person who is about to speak from the Dispatch Box.

John Healey: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to halt its current plans to cap, at the local housing allowance rate, help with housing costs for tenants of supported housing and to adopt instead a system which safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing, building on the recommendations of the First Joint Report of the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees of Session 2016-17, Future of supported housing, HC 867.
This is the third Labour-led debate to confront the Government about their plans for supported housing. Perhaps it is a case of third time lucky, after the Prime Minister announced at Prime Minister’s questions this morning that the Government had backed off from capping help with supported housing costs at the local housing allowance rate. I am really glad, as I was in previous debates, to see so many Members from all parts of the House in the Chamber. The Prime Minister’s announcement was certainly welcome, and it was good to see Labour yet again winning the argument and making the running on Government policy.

Frank Field: I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) will also try to catch my right hon. Friend’s eye, but may I say that this was a unanimous proposal from two Select Committees—the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee —and that we are immensely pleased by the Government response? May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who was the lead member of the Work and Pensions Committee on the report and steered it to success?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He pre-empts some of the tributes I am going to pay to members of his Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee for the role they have played. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who chaired the sittings on the very important joint report, which was published back in May.
After what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, we now know what the Government will not do, but we do not know what they will do. She said that the full announcement on future plans will be made on Tuesday, which is Hallowe’en, so the real question is: will this be trick or treat? Let us hope that this is third time lucky, and that the Government get the policy right this time. Ensuring that they did was the purpose of this debate, and even after the Prime Minister’s partial statement about the Government’s future plans, it remains the purpose of this debate.
Since November 2015, these plans have been like the sword of Damocles hanging over the homes of more than 700,000 frail and elderly people, young people leaving care, homeless people and those with dementia,  mental illness and learning disabilities, as well as ex-service veterans and women fleeing domestic violence. We called this debate to give a voice to the continued urgent warnings of organisations such as Mencap, Age Concern, Centrepoint, the Salvation Army and Women’s Aid, and their concerns are still important as the Government finalise their plans. We called this debate to give Parliament a further opportunity to play its proper role in challenging and contributing to Government policy decisions, and our concerns are still important today. I trust that Ministers realise that Parliament, the housing sector and the Government must all play an essential part in sorting out a good, long-term system for supported housing for the future.
It is now nearly two years since the Chancellor revealed the plan for crude cuts to supported housing via the local housing allowance, it is over a year since the second version of the same plan was announced and there is now less than 18 months until any changes are set to start. The fears of many of the most vulnerable people in our society are very real, and the damage is already being done to vital specialist housing at a time when we already need at least 17,000 more such homes. The National Housing Federation reports that 85% of all building plans for new supported, sheltered or extra care housing have been halted over the past two years by the Government’s plans, and the Salvation Army says that the future of nine in 10 of its lifehouses for homeless people
“could be placed at risk.”
Our motion is designed to map a way forward. It calls on the Government, first, to halt its current plans—tick. That is what the Prime Minister announced today, and that is what the Government say they will do. It also calls on the Government to adopt instead a system that safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing, building on the recommendations of the joint report. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will signal their support for this approach during the debate, and then back the motion so that the will of Parliament is clear to the Government.
Together, the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee have done a really important service to the House and to the Government with their recent report. As I did earlier, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gloucester and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I look forward to their speeches and to the contributions of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who I have previously heard make a very persuasive case in calling on the Government to change their plans.
Let me turn instead to the heart of what is at stake and what still remains to be settled. The decision to drop the local housing allowance part of the plans is welcome, as we and the Select Committee have been clear about the Government’s error in this regard: it is too low and too variable to be the basis for supported housing. Will the Minister confirm today that any system for setting the level of support for those in supported housing will take full account of the costs? Will he confirm that the long-term funding levels will reflect the need for supported housing now and in the future? Will he guarantee that this policy will not be subject to the same ill-conceived, ill-judged decisions that we have seen over the past two years?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with what he is saying. Does he agree that it was a particularly bizarre proposal to link funding to the local housing allowance when all the evidence shows that the cost of providing supported housing bears no relation whatever to the local housing allowance in a particular area?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Select Committees’ joint report was very clear about that.
Not only does the LHA bear little relation to the actual cost, when the cost of providing supported housing is pretty consistent wherever people are in the country, but an LHA-based approach—I am glad the Government have backed off—would cause particular problems in the north and the midlands, where the level of the LHA is much lower. In my own area, the South Yorkshire Housing Association says that the majority of the 1,000 places it provides in supported housing for the frail elderly, people with learning disabilities and the homeless are at risk, and describes that approach as “catastrophic”. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who knows such a great deal about welfare and benefits issues, is absolutely right.

Kate Green: My right hon. Friend is right that LHA would be completely unsuitable as a measure when rental costs and local housing markets are different, but is it not also the case that support costs vary between, say, sheltered housing at one end of the scale, where there might effectively just be a concierge service, and intensive support for ex-offenders or young people leaving care at the other?

John Healey: That is true, and my hon. Friend is another of the House’s experts in this area. However, it is also the case that the housing benefit element of the costs of supported housing is designed to cover the housing costs and the management of housing costs, not the personal or support care costs.
Sometimes there is a confusion of those issues, but there should be no confusion for the Minister or the Government. In their own review in 2011, they listed the main reasons behind the costs of supported housing, where housing costs are often greater than those for general needs housing, saying that they included
“providing 24 hour housing management cover…providing more housing related support than in mainstream housing…organising more frequent repairs or refurbishment…providing more frequent mediating between tenants; and…providing extra CCTV and security services”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is absolutely right, and I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing her speak, and that she too will welcome the Prime Minister’s partial announcement today.
For all of us in this House and, in particular, for the 700,000 people who currently have their homes in supported or sheltered housing, what the Government do instead matters a great deal. The devil is always in the detail and the funding. We are told that we will have to wait until next week for the detail, so let me turn to funding. The previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now the deputy Prime Minister, said in a written ministerial statement in September 2016:
“we will bring in a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 37WS.]
That is simply not true. Total funding is only protected in year one, 2019-20. In year two, the sector faces a funding cliff edge with cuts of more than £500 million scheduled from April 2020. Government Members are right to look puzzled and a little alarmed. This has not been mentioned by Ministers and it is only evident in the small print of the Treasury’s fiscal reports. If Members look closely at the Treasury documents, as I have, they will see exactly what the Government plan.
On page 87 of the Budget 2016 Red Book, table 2.2 shows that the Government scored cuts to supported housing spending of £390 million in 2020-21. Following the pledge by the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to protect funding, page 12 of the Treasury’s 2016 autumn statement policy costings report reflected the commitment that overall funding for supported housing will be the same in 2019-20. However, it also confirmed that the amended policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman will
“generate additional savings in subsequent years as it is applied to the stock of supported housing tenants”.
In other words, that includes all current supported housing tenants and not just, as originally planned, the new ones. It shows additional cost cuts in 2020-21 of £160 million. Of course, that was updated in the Budget 2017 Red Book to £165 million. As well as the £390 million of cuts already announced, therefore, there will be a further cut in 2020-21, the second year of any new system.
The upshot is clear: Ministers have lined up costs for this programme. And they have lined up cuts of over half a billion pounds for year two of any new system they put in place, and further cuts after that. This is a funding cliff edge for existing supported housing and it entirely demolishes Ministers’ claims that they will protect supported housing. Will the Minister confirm today that the Government will make good this funding gap in full, so that the Prime Minister’s pledge this morning to the House in Prime Minister’s questions can be properly honoured?
In our motion, we say the Government should adopt a system that
“safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing.”
I want to set out four tests for the Government, which explain what we mean and how we will judge the detail of any plans for change. First, any new funding system must reflect the real cost of running supported housing. Secondly, any new funding system must be needs-led and be able to deal with increases in demand and need for supported housing, not subject to arbitrary cash limits such as departmental revenue spending. Thirdly, any funding model for the future must take account of the particular needs of very short-term accommodation, including homeless hostels and women’s refuges—this is one of the very serious failings with universal credit. Fourthly, and most importantly, any new funding system must not lead to the closure of any vitally needed supported housing.
This is a Government with no majority or mandate for domestic policy, because this is not covered by their deal with the Democratic Unionist party. It is Britain’s first minority Government for 38 years. As a Parliament, and as Members on all sides, we are still coming to terms with the much bigger role and much stronger say we have in Government policy decisions.  The influence—[Interruption.] The Minister snorts, but the truth is that the influence of Members from all sides has had a very significant bearing on the policy on supported housing. It has been very significant so far, but there is a good deal more to do. I trust that Ministers will see this debate as another important contribution.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Healey: I will. I was just about to finish, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

George Howarth: Good timing on my part! I suggest to my right hon. Friend that a fifth test might be in order: would any new Government scheme enable more supported housing to be built, thereby releasing family housing for those in housing need, while also saving money on care home costs further down the line?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right; perhaps that should be a fifth test. Certainly the first part of any fifth test must be whether, when the Government announce their plan, all the schemes halted in the last couple of years then get the go-ahead.
Finally, Parliament, the housing sector and the Government must together sort out a good long-term system for supported housing. I hope that our motion and this debate can be the basis for just that.

Marcus Jones: I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for securing this important debate and for allowing me to set out the Government’s position on supported housing.
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think today he has somewhat overplayed his hand. I welcome his contribution, but in a sense he has come to the table rather late. I will set out our approach to this important issue and demonstrate how we have listened to the sector, to the people who need this important support and indeed to the joint Select Committee.
We are currently putting the finishing touches to our new funding model for supported housing, and as the Prime Minister said earlier, there will be an announcement next week. That is clearly within the timetable I have described in several debates now and which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out to the Communities and Local Government Committee last week.
Our response to the consultation and the new funding model for supported housing follows our extensive and constructive engagement with providers and local authorities, the aim of which was to ensure we got the model right. I am sure that we all recognise the invaluable role that supported housing plays in our society. It helps some of our country’s most vulnerable people to maintain their independence and is a vital lifeline for hundreds and thousands of people up and down the country.
Supported housing is also an important investment that brings savings to other parts of the public sector,  such as health and social care. In fact, we estimate that the annual net fiscal benefit of providing supported housing is probably upwards of £3.5 billion. It is essential, therefore, that we develop and deliver a sustainable long-term funding model for supported housing and that it works for providers, commissioners, taxpayers and, most importantly, vulnerable tenants.

Daniel Zeichner: Does the Minister accept, though, that during this prolonged period of uncertainty it has been hard for providers to bring forward new schemes? In my city, we have seen more and more people sleeping on the streets, and I am told that there is huge pressure on supported housing. Does he accept that during this period the situation has been made much more difficult?

Marcus Jones: We have provided 27,000 new supported housing units since 2011, and I shall say something in a moment about our ambition to develop new units. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in that, before making a long-term commitment, providers want to make sure that there is a long-term, sustainable source of funds.
I think it is important that we took time to organise our consultation and listen carefully to providers, to the sector as a whole and to local government. I believe that when our policy and our plans are announced next week, it will be clear that we also listened to the Select Committees, which did a very positive job in respect of the policy that the Government are so keen to get right.

Thangam Debbonaire: What my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said was quite right. I cannot understand why the Minister wants us to be pleased that the Government have listened, given that they had more than two years in which to do that listening, and in the meantime our supported housing units have suffered, homelessness has increased, and women in refuges have been caused great uncertainty because the people who run those refuges have not been able to plan properly. Why has it taken so long?

Marcus Jones: The hon. Lady makes a good point about women’s refuges in particular. I can tell her that the number of bed spaces in those refuges has increased since 2010, and has not decreased as she tried to imply, but I take her point.
I must stress that getting this right has been an important process. The problem with the supported housing that is currently provided is that, although the vast majority of providers are very trustworthy and provide a good level of support for very vulnerable people, other organisations that purport to provide supported housing, and charge the taxpayer for it, are not actually providing support for those people. We have had to address that important matter by ensuring that there is oversight in the system.

David Drew: One of the submissions that the Minister has no doubt read is from the Salvation Army, which commissioned a report from Frontier Economics. I am sure he does not think that the Salvation Army is one of the organisations that are not able to provide good-quality care, but, according to  the report, it is unable to provide the service that it would like to provide under the existing cost regime. Can the Minister reassure the Salvation Army that there will be no further cost-cutting? That would be so unfair to the most vulnerable in our society.

Marcus Jones: Organisations like the Salvation Army provide a very important service in many communities throughout the country, helping some of the most vulnerable people who have ended up on the streets and sleeping rough. As I think was mentioned in the joint Select Committee report, we have been very conscious of the need to look after the future of short-term as well as longer-term supported housing. That point was also made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. I think that when our proposals are presented, the hon. Gentleman will see that we have certainly considered organisations that provide short-term supported accommodation, and we want to ensure that people receive the help that they need from organisations such as the one he mentioned.
Our consultation ended earlier this year. We welcomed all 592 responses, and since then we have taken careful stock of the views of local government providers and tenants. As I have already said several times, we also welcomed the Select Committees’ inquiry and subsequent report on the future funding of supported housing. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and the other members of those Committees for the part they played in putting forward many solutions on this important issue that we must get right. As I have said on several previous occasions, when our final proposals come forward it will be seen that we have listened.

John Healey: Will the Minister give the undertaking that when the Government are finally ready to announce their full proposals, that announcement will be made here in the House, and that the Minister responsible will make an oral statement so that Members of all parties have a chance to hear and to question the Minister about those plans?

Marcus Jones: These are very detailed proposals because this is a very detailed policy area, and therefore Members will need to digest them. I will be candid with the right hon. Gentleman: we are currently considering what form that response takes, in terms of how we inform the House. However, we will certainly want to set out our plans, which we think are a very positive solution to the challenges in this regard, and will want to engage not only with Members, but with providers and investors, and with the people who receive this important support.

David Hanson: The Minister lists the people he will be consulting; will he discuss further with the Welsh Assembly Government how the proposals will play out in Wales? As is the case for my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), schemes have been delayed in Wales because there has been uncertainty about what happens with the block grant, whether there is a Barnett consequential, what happens with the Department for Work and Pensions, and how this will work at a local level. Will he discuss this matter with Cardiff, and has he already done so?

Marcus Jones: I will reassure the right hon. Gentleman by saying that our officials are already engaged with officials in the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, and will continue that dialogue because this is an important issue in England. Our Department is responsible, with the DWP, for this policy in England, but there is also an implication for Scotland and Wales, and we want to make sure we support the implementation of the new system in those Administrations as well.
As I have said, I believe that our proposals will show that we have listened. We have paid careful attention to user groups concerned about short-term supported accommodation, as well as the concerns expressed in the Committees’ joint report. We know that a separate model is needed for short-term funding, and this different approach must work for both providers and vulnerable tenants. Hostels, refuges and other forms of short-term accommodation play a vital role in our society. They provide consistent high-quality support for vulnerable people, many of whom have experienced a real crisis in their lives, or are experiencing one at that point.
In particular, we are fully committed to ensuring that no victim of domestic abuse is turned away from the support they need. Since 2014 we have invested £33.5 million in services to support victims of domestic abuse, including refuges. Furthermore, in February we announced that 76 projects across the country will receive a share of our £20 million fund to further support victims of domestic abuse. We want to be clear that everyone who is eligible under the current system to have their housing costs met by housing benefit will continue to have their housing costs met through our funding model for short-term accommodation, and, as has been mentioned on several occasions in this debate, we also recognise that the sector needs the clarity to invest in future growth.
We recognise that we must foster and boost the supply of much-needed housing, building on the rent certainty given by the Prime Minister in her speech at the party conference and the announcement that she has made today. With demand set to increase, we know that it is vital to design a system that is fit for purpose.
Since 2011, we have delivered 27,000 units of specialist and general housing for disabled, vulnerable and older people. We know that the model of funding will need to build and encourage long-term sustainability, as well as supporting the development of new supply. It must also make the best use of the existing provision. Providers and investors have continued to bid for capital grant funding to finance and develop new supported and sheltered housing through this process, but we recognise that the supported housing sector needs greater certainty over funding to encourage and bring forward the new supply that many organisations up and down the country are looking to achieve. That certainty will help the sector to continue to deliver much-needed new supported housing and older people’s sheltered housing. We must also inject confidence into the sector by bringing clarity to future arrangements and, as I have said, we will do that shortly. Our proposals will show that we have taken the time to get this right, that we have listened and that we have put forward a model that works for longer-term accommodation.
I also want to mention strategic planning. Our continued engagement with local authorities and providers of supported housing has been highly constructive in  that regard. We have been able to broaden our understanding of the importance of local strategic planning, partnership working, commissioning and oversight. The Select Committees’ joint report has highlighted the need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient guidance, time and resources if they are successfully to implement the new funding regime for supported housing. We have carefully considered these issues. We want to encourage local government, providers of supported housing and the wider public sector to continue to develop a joined-up strategic and holistic approach with a greater focus on local outcomes, oversight and value for money. We have also listened and recognised that, after our announcement, we will need to continue to engage with local government and the sector over the preparation and implementation of our proposals. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne pointed out, timing will be an important part of that.
We want the design of the reformed funding model to be flexible and responsive. We want it to meet the variety of demands placed on it for such a diverse sector and client base. We have therefore been working across Government, particularly with our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, to consider the needs of all supported housing client groups. Our reformed model must work for vulnerable older people and disabled people as well as those with learning difficulties and those suffering from mental ill health. In this regard, I believe that our announcement will demonstrate our willingness to listen.
We are fully dedicated to safeguarding the most vulnerable people in our society. That is why we announced £400 million of funding in the spending review to deliver new specialist affordable homes for vulnerable and elderly people and those with learning disabilities. This is also why the Department of Health has committed £200 million to build new homes through the care and support specialised housing fund. On top of that, the Department of Health has committed £1 billion by 2020-21 for mental health services, including putting crisis resolution and home treatment teams on a 24/7 footing. Moreover, the spring Budget 2017 announced an additional £2 billion of funding in England to spend on adult social care, £1 billion of which will be provided this year.
As I hope I have made clear, protecting the most vulnerable in our society is a key commitment of this Government, and developing a workable and sustainable funding model for supported housing remains a priority. We have listened to the sector through our consultation, we have taken account of the joint report of the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee, I have taken on board the comments that the right hon. Gentleman made today, although they came to us very late in the day, and next week, as the Prime Minister set out, we will come forward with a positive, forward-looking solution to secure the future supply of supported housing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and that we have  limited time. There will be an initial time limit of seven minutes, but that is likely to be reduced later. The time limit of course does not apply to Mr Neil Gray.

Neil Gray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep my comments as brief as possible. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in yet another important Opposition day debate—important, but unfortunate. Just like the debates on universal credit and many other topics, it has had to be called due to potentially damaging and ill-thought-out proposed social security cuts and changes by the UK Government.
It appeared as though the debate would be characterised by the many features that have unfortunately become a recurring theme in the past few years: changes being proposed in the name of austerity and deficit reduction at all costs, a lack of consultation with the relevant bodies and those who will be directly impacted and no thought given to what some of the possible consequences may be. However, the Prime Minister’s answer today to the question from the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—not to take away from his creativity or independence of thought, I suspect that he may have had some inspiration from somewhere for that question—stated that the UK Government will not apply the local housing allowance cap to supported housing, nor implement it in the wider social rented sector. That suggests that the UK Government finally listened to the concerns raised by Parliament, the relevant Select Committees and the important voices within the sector who have done fantastic work campaigning against the cut, and they finally realised the alarm and concern that the uncertainty and potential consequences of this policy announcement were causing. It is a welcome step, but as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Minister, said, the devil will of course be in the detail, and we will be keeping a close eye on the consultation response when is published next week.
I hope that the reversal is not a one-off and that the Government will continue to review other policies that have been causing similar apprehension in Parliament and among constituents and relevant organisations—I am of course thinking of universal credit—but it is still worrying that the announcement was made only as a result of the Minister being forced to answer to the House in this way, thus prolonging the agony for a sector that has faced potential disinvestment as a result of the uncertainty caused by the proposals.
Such discussions should have taken place before the previous Chancellor’s announcement in the 2015 autumn statement that he planned to cap the amount of rent that housing benefit will cover in the social rented sector to the relevant local housing allowance rate. That announcement raised many concerns about the impact on the whole sector, and as we are here to discuss today, it was particularly worrying for tenants and providers of supported accommodation due to the higher rents that understandably typify this sector. I hope that today’s announcement has thankfully nullified some of the key reasons for why this debate was called, but the debate still provides a useful opportunity to remind ourselves of what is meant by supported accommodation and why it plays such a vital role throughout all our constituencies and communities.
Supported accommodation encompasses a wide range of different housing types, including hostels, refuges and sheltered housing. It exists to provide a lifeline to some of the most vulnerable within society: women fleeing domestic violence who are in need of protection, those with disabilities who require support in their day-to-day living and elderly people who require assistance to maintain their independence. In my constituency, one of the best examples of that is Monklands Women’s Aid, which is run by Sharon Aitchison and does fantastic work providing responsive domestic abuse services to women, children and young people.
Women’s Aid’s response to the UK Government’s original proposals emphasised the fact that benefit entitlement provides some sustainability and financial security to refuges in an otherwise challenging funding environment and is a vital interim protection until a sustainable funding solution for refuge is secured. Women’s Aid went on to call for the maintenance of the current funding system until a sustainable model for funding both the housing and support costs that refuges face is fully developed, piloted and secured.
It is crucial to preserve the stability on housing costs that housing benefit provides until the UK Government fulfil the commitment to a sustainable solution for both elements of refuge funding. Women’s Aid also highlighted the important point, of which the UK Government now appear to have taken cognisance, that:
“Designed to control housing benefit costs in the private sector, LHA rates bear no relation to the actual costs of providing supported accommodation such as refuges.”
Such places not only benefit those individuals and groups who rely on their services but provide a wider societal positive economic externality.
According to the National Housing Federation, the annual saving to the taxpayer through the reduced reliance of older tenants on health and social care services —that is also topical today—is estimated to be £3,000 per person. For people living with learning difficulties and mental health issues, the saving is between £12,500 and £15,500. The saving that the sector provides to the UK Government from lower costs for the NHS, social care and the criminal justice system is estimated to be in the region of £3.5 billion.
The reasons why supported accommodation carries higher rent costs than mainstream social housing are well known, and the previous Chancellor should have been more aware of them before he made this alarming policy announcement in 2015. Zhan McIntyre of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said that the extra costs include 24-hour staffing of some facilities, the installation and monitoring of CCTV, high turnover rates in the accommodation, repair costs and enhanced fire monitoring and safety equipment.
Although this reversal is welcome, further clarity is still required on what the long-term policy and funding model will be and on whether the proposed replacement will be adequate for the future security of the sector, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said.
A survey by the National Housing Federation in May 2017 suggests that some of the damage of the 2015 policy announcement has already been done, as it found that plans to develop new supported housing units have been reduced from 8,800 to 1,350 in the face of ongoing uncertainty about future funding streams, representing  a decrease of 85%. That is particularly worrying given the growing demand for specialist and supported housing, and as with mainstream housing, it is essential that we find ways to incentivise, not to deter, further investment. It will be interesting to see how the Government aim to fill that rather large gap.
Shelter has raised concerns that the proposal essentially
“completely upends the financing of supported housing and introduces a huge amount of uncertainty to the sector.”
It is also particularly worried that, with local authority finances already squeezed,
“funding identified for housing costs could be used for other services.”
On 15 December 2016, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government announced a joint inquiry into supported housing funding, the report of which was published before the general election. The report, which my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) worked on, welcomed efforts to find a long-term sustainable funding mechanism for the sector but said:
“we share the concerns expressed across the sector that the funding proposals, as they stand, are unlikely to achieve these objectives.”
Now the Government have stated that they intend to abandon this route, we hope they will also announce a robust and sustainable plan and will protect the sector from any further announcements of cuts.
The American poet Robert Frost once defined a home as
“the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.”
For many people, the only suitable homes available are offered by the providers of supported accommodation. The Government’s reversal today is welcome, but concerns about the need for a system that safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported accommodation still need to be addressed to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society always have a place that will take them in.

Peter Aldous: I welcome this debate, as it follows on well from the half-hour Westminster Hall debate I secured on 10 October. That was very well attended and, although I was able to take some interventions, I am very aware that a lot of colleagues were not able to have their say. Today’s debate provides a further opportunity for Members from across the House to re-emphasise the vital importance of putting the funding of supported housing on a sustainable long-term footing. The task in front of us is not straightforward, but the more we debate the matter and talk about it in a constructive way, the better is the prospect of putting in place a sustainable system that can bring significant benefits to people who face very real challenges as they go about their everyday lives. We need a sustainable long-term solution; not a sticking plaster.
The case for supported housing is compelling. There is a rising demand for care and support, because of an ageing population and increased mental ill health and learning disabilities. A secure and comfortable home should be the cornerstone of life for everyone, regardless of their background and personal circumstances. If that cornerstone is in place, older people can retain their  dignity and their independence, those fleeing domestic violence can find refuge and stabilise their lives and the homeless can more easily make the transition from living on the street to a settled home.
Supported housing provides outstanding value for money. For the elderly, it is less expensive than an alternative residential care setting. It has huge strategic advantages for councils providing adult social care services within very tight budgets, and its costs compare very favourably with those in the NHS. It is vital that the two Departments leading this debate, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions, liaise and work closely with the Department for Health. There is a need to think outside departmental silos and to engage with NHS England.
For a relatively small cost to the public, supported housing reduces the strain on the NHS and care services, reduces unnecessary hospital stays and prevents moves to more costly residential care. It is important to highlight that if we get this right and put in place a sustainable and workable long-term funding system, it will be much easier to leverage in additional social investment capital into the sector. Cheyne Capital advises that if a sustainable framework had been in place over the past two years, it would have invested £120 million in supported housing.
Taking into account the strategic importance of supported housing, the Government were right to carry out the first evidence review of the sector in 20 years, publishing their findings on 21 October last year. On the same day, they launched their consultation on their preliminary proposals, setting up four task and finish groups to address specific challenges. The YMCA has welcomed much of the preparatory work that has been carried out, highlighting the Government’s commitment and willingness to engage with the sector. It is also important to highlight the significant amount of funding provided by the Government over the past five years, which the Minister has outlined.
The Government published their preliminary funding proposals on 15 September last year and these were then put out to consultation. Various concerns have been identified, and as we have seen with the announcement by the Prime Minister today on the removal of the local housing allowance cap for supported housing, the Government are very much listening.
There is a concern that the proposals are a one-size-fits-all approach and do not properly take account of the needs of the different parts of the sector—that has been highlighted by Centrepoint. There is also a worry that a postcode lottery might be created—Sense has highlighted that as well. We hope that today’s announcements will remove part of that concern, but the issue needs to be looked at closely.
There is clear evidence that developments are being put on hold; the Home Group advises that it has 1,842 homes in its build pipeline, but it has been unable to commit to developing these without clarity over future funding. There is a concern that the current proposed funding framework creates a funding gap for existing schemes—the YMCA has highlighted that. There are also worries about how the proposals will work alongside universal credit, as highlighted by Centrepoint and Emmaus.
On 1 May, the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee published their unanimous joint report, in which they made three recommendations to complement and build on the Government’s proposals. In my opinion, taking into account the feedback from across the sector, the Government should give full and serious consideration to adopting the recommendations. Along with five housing associations, my noble Friend Lord Best has looked at data from some 43,000 homes, and it appears that what they recommend does provide a viable and working option.
When the Government respond next week to the consultation that closed in February, they should put forward a revised funding framework. There should be a revised timetable for obtaining feedback on it, for carrying out an impact assessment and for road-testing it, and then for its introduction. There needs to be a clear direction of travel. As I have said, this is not a straightforward task, but I sense that by working together, a partnership of the Government, Parliament and the supported housing sector can put in place a long-lasting framework that addresses the concerns of many vulnerable people and in doing so provides them with dignity, peace of mind and hope.

Clive Betts: Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for their work in chairing the joint inquiry, which produced an excellent report that was agreed unanimously by both the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee. It is a tribute to the strength of the Select Committee system that the joint inquiry listened to the evidence, which overwhelmingly said that the Government had got themselves into the wrong place on this issue.
The local housing allowance has no connection whatsoever with the costs of supported housing. By starting from the assumption that the two are connected, the Government could not come up with a system that worked. I am pleased that they have accepted that fundamental point today and agreed that the local housing allowance will play no part when they develop a new system to help supported housing. Having reached that position, away from the local housing allowance, the Government can get themselves to the point where they can develop a sensible system for the future. We will hear next Tuesday whether they will go on to develop such a sensible system, when they respond to the joint Select Committee report, but at least we are in a better place. I thank the Government for at least listening to that fundamental recommendation from the joint report.
We are currently waiting for the Government’s detailed response, but as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) just explained, Lord Best has worked with five housing associations and come forward with a considered piece of work that shows that a discreet and particular allowance for supported housing can be developed at no extra cost. Such an allowance should take into account the fact that the regional variations in the costs of providing supported housing throughout the country  are actually very small. If we develop a system with small regional variations that is more related to the actual costs of supported housing, with relatively small top-ups, we can provide a much greater degree of certainty for supported housing providers.
One of the problems with the LHA system was that the massive differences in LHA rates throughout the country meant that we needed significant top-ups, which varied up and down the country. That introduced great uncertainty to the system. Suppliers have not been sure whether the top-ups would be forthcoming in future years, so the housing providers have not been able to go to their investors and say with certainty what their future funding and financial arrangements are. That was a problem, but hopefully we have got away from it. The scheme that was put forward in principle by the National Housing Federation and worked on by the five housing associations and Lord Best shows that it can be done in a way that does not cost any more but results in a much more sensible and considered system. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and come forward with something similar when they respond next Tuesday. We look forward to the details of that response.
It is important that, next week, the Government give us a timeframe, because 85% of schemes in the pipeline have been put on hold. There have been doubts about the continuation of some existing schemes, but, certainly, a big hold has been put on other schemes in the pipeline. Those are schemes that are badly needed by people for a whole range of reasons. Some people struggling in their own homes, for example, could be helped to live in much better circumstances. Let us have a timeframe for implementation.
We must also recognise that it is not just what we think about the proposals, but what the local authorities think as they will have to implement the costs and provide the grants. Most importantly, it is also what the providers—housing associations and others—think about them. After next Tuesday, will they say, “We now feel that we can go forward with this investment with some degree of certainty?” Will the Government take on board the recommendations of the joint Select Committee to bring forward these proposals not merely with a timeframe, but in a considered way to allow organisations to adapt to the changes—adapt in a way that means that these developments will proceed in the future in the way that we all hope.

Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, alongside that geographical flexibility, it is also important that faith-based organisations, such as Emmaus and the Salvation Army, have flexibility about the model that they provide—very often they work alongside Shelter—so that the new system can accommodate a variety of approaches?

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, makes a very good point. Supported housing is often a global term used to describe a very wide variety of provisions from different providers and different suppliers. When we have a grant system that covers all such provision, it is important that it also covers the differences, and allows for those differences to be reflected in the way that the provision is made. When we get that recommendation from the Government next week, in  response to the joint Select Committee report, it is important that it is flexible enough to take on board all those different circumstances. That is what I will be looking for. We will also be looking not just at the Government’s response, but at the response of housing associations and other providers as to how they view the Government’s proposals in terms of what they will enable them to do in the future.
I recognise that others wish to speak, so let me say to the Minister that I will wait for the recommendations next week before responding further. Obviously, that is the appropriate thing to do. However, it is clear that while the Minister’s response will be made directly to the two Select Committees—that is the way the Government will respond to our report—there clearly is a wider interest in the matter across the House among Members who do not necessarily belong to the two Select Committees. I am very happy to work with the Minister—I am sure that the same is true for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—to find a way in which these proposals can be shared and considered by all Members of the House. I hope that he will take on board that offer, because it is important that there is a wider debate on this as there is such widespread interest in it.

John Lamont: There is consensus across this Chamber that supported housing plays a hugely important role across the United Kingdom. Such housing supports those with learning difficulties, allowing them to live as independently as possible; helps the elderly who need more support at home but do not require to be in care; provides a safe refuge for those escaping domestic violence; helps ex-offenders make a successful transition back into mainstream society; and supports those who have experienced being homeless.
Supported housing can transform the lives of young people whose families have either put them in care or are no longer around to support them. Being in supported housing means not only that those young people have a roof over their heads, but, for the first time, that many of them feel they have some stability. There are many examples of this public service being provided in my own area in the Scottish borders. There is the Eildon Group, which provides sheltered housing in Galashiels, Hawick and Melrose in my constituency to help older people live independently and with dignity in their local borders communities. Streets Ahead is an organisation that has helped adults with learning difficulties into supported accommodation across the Scottish borders for the past 30 years. Supported housing cuts across many other services. Without homes like these, our health and justice sectors would face even greater demands. Because supported housing helps so many people with different needs, it is a complex area and one that the UK Government have rightly taken time to consider.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticise the Government for failing to listen to the sector, yet at the same time criticise them for taking too long to announce their proposals. The truth is that the Government have shown that they are willing to listen to concerns about future funding for supported housing. After initial concerns, implementation of the local housing cap was delayed and the Government proposed an alternative top-up funding model.

Matt Western: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Lamont: I just want to make some progress, if I may.
Today’s announcement by the Prime Minister that the cap will not be rolled out for supported housing is just further evidence of the Government’s willingness to listen. I look forward to the Government’s detailed plans for supported housing funding, which will be published next week, as promised. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK Government have listened to concerns about the local housing allowance cap and that it will not be applied to supported housing or, indeed, the social housing sector more widely. I welcome the fact that the UK Government are engaging with the sector to decide how best to proceed. This is sensible.

Matt Western: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the criticism is actually about the cuts to local authority funding. To challenge his point, Warwickshire County Council’s budget has been halved, and we have seen wholesale closures of much housing and many refuges, which has led to the number of people sleeping rough on the streets doubling in recent months. The issue is down to the lack of funding from central Government to our local authorities.

Eleanor Laing: The time limits in this debate are really tight, so we cannot have long interventions. An intervention should be a quick point.

John Lamont: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Of course, in my area of the Scottish borders it is the Scottish National party, which is in government in Scotland, that is responsible for the cuts to our local authority budgets, not the UK Government. Therefore, I suggest that the intervention directed to me should be directed to my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the Scottish Government have slashed local government funding.
It is right that the UK Government are looking at how to ensure a sustainable future for supported housing. Under the last Labour Administration, spending on housing benefit increased by 46% in real terms. Average social rents have risen by around 55 % over the past 10 years, compared to 23% in the private rented sector. This was simply just not sustainable. It is essential, therefore, that whatever funding model is introduced for supported housing is sustainable and works for providers, commissioners and vulnerable tenants, as well as for the taxpayer. Whatever funding model is adopted—and if devolved Administrations are given control over funding—it is crucial that local variations are considered.
The local housing allowance rate in my area of the Scottish borders is the lowest in the whole of Scotland. It is therefore important that any future funding model encourages investors to come to the borders instead of building elsewhere. I hope that the Minister has considered areas such as the borders when deciding on the future funding model for supported housing. Of course, it is also open to the SNP Scottish Government to provide additional funding for those in receipt of housing benefit  through discretionary housing payments, which have been devolved. I await with bated breath a commitment from any SNP Member who has concerns about the changes to supported housing payments actually to do something, rather than just complain. The Government have demonstrated that they are willing to listen to concerns.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman is new to this House, so I will forgive him, but SNP Members have been doing and saying things on this issue for quite some time. It may interest him to know that a Department for Work and Pensions civil servant told the Communities and Local Government Committee on 13 June last year that the evidence review and policy conclusions would be published “before the summer recess”. That was last year; we have been waiting for the Government to act for quite some time.

John Lamont: I thank the hon. Lady for that point. As she will know, I spent 10 years in the Scottish Parliament, listening to her colleagues complaining constantly about UK Government policy decisions. But despite the fact that the SNP there had more control over welfare than ever before, it was unable to use the powers it had to take action.
The Government have demonstrated themselves willing to listen to concerns about this important issue, and I welcome that. I am confident that we will see a set of proposals next week that will provide security and certainty for tenants and providers, as well as value for money for the taxpayer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I am sorry that I have to reduce the time limit now to five minutes because so many people still wish to speak.

Ivan Lewis: The Prime Minister’s announcement that the Government will not apply the local housing allowance cap to supported housing is a welcome U-turn. The proposed changes would have been detrimental to hundreds of thousands of people across the country. This is a victory for the housing sector, the Labour Front Bench and those Tory MPs who sought to persuade Ministers to listen.
The application of the local housing allowance rate was totally inappropriate, as it is a market-facing rate that bears no resemblance to the cost of building a domestic violence shelter, extra care schemes or hostels for homeless people. Had the changes gone ahead, they would undoubtedly have led to an increase in homelessness, which has risen every year since 2010.
There are some on the Opposition side of the House who would accuse the Government of deliberately setting out to target vulnerable people across a whole range of policy areas. The truth is that the pattern since 2010 has been for the Government, using the aftermath of the financial crash as the excuse, to slash and burn budgets in Whitehall with scant regard for the impact on the ground. Too often, those without a voice have borne the brunt of those attacks, with the Government cynically calculating that there would be little or no impact in the ballot box.

Ben Bradley: Constantly under Labour Governments we heard stories of families claiming £100,000-plus in housing benefit. In welcoming the Government’s announcement today on supported housing, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there was clearly a need to change the way we dealt with housing benefit?

Ivan Lewis: This is not the place to repeat fake news. That was not the record of the last Labour Government. The reality is that rough sleeping was a consequence of the Thatcher years, which left a deeply divided and damaged society in this country. I see the consequences of that in my role as joint mayoral lead for rough sleeping and homelessness in Greater Manchester. Benefit sanctions and poverty, which mean that people cannot pay their rent, and the conduct of some private landlords are significant factors in the growing numbers of people sleeping on the streets of 21st-century Britain. We should collectively hang our heads in shame at this awful state of affairs.
In Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has shown real political leadership by making rough sleeping and homelessness a top priority for his mayoralty. We welcome the fact that, last week, the Government made £3.7 million available to enable Greater Manchester to support people who would otherwise end up on the streets. However, the roll-out of universal credit, savage cuts to mental health services, and benefit sanctions are leading to more people ending up on the streets and without appropriate accommodation. The Government are therefore having to spend money mitigating the impact of their own destructive lack of joined-up social policies.
The test of any society and any Government should be how they treat the most vulnerable, and this Government have a shocking record. If today’s U-turn is the beginning of a new approach, I and other Opposition Members will welcome it.
A supported home is vital. For women fleeing domestic violence, a supported home is a desperately needed safe space. For war veterans, a supported home is vital to help them to adjust to civilian life. For disabled people, a supported home is the bedrock of an independent life.
According to the National Housing Federation, the uncertainty the Government have been causing has already led to providers having to cut the number of supported housing homes they plan to build by 85%. What will the Government do in the context of this U-turn to deal with the fact that there has been a slowdown in the development of much-needed provision?
For thousands of vulnerable people—in my constituency and other constituencies—this U-turn is indeed welcome. The Government should now adopt the Select Committee’s recommendations in full. They must safeguard the long-term future, as well as the funding of supported housing and of the many excellent organisations that provide it on the frontline.
But beyond that, the Government should reflect on the consequences of failing to learn the lessons of history. The Thatcher era left a deeply divided and scarred society. I am sad to say that the current Prime Minister, who once spoke of the “nasty party”, will have to make many more U-turns to prevent this national tragedy from repeating itself.

Jo Churchill: I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today that the Government have listened to the concerns of all interested parties and that as part of the wider review they will not be applying the 1% cap for supported housing.
I thank the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) for his contribution. He mentioned the National Housing Federation. After the comment this morning, David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, reiterated its pleasure in seeing that the cap had been lifted. I know that it will also be welcomed by housing associations such as Havebury Housing Partnership in my constituency, as housing associations provide about 71% of all homes in the area.
I believe that we all want a funding model that is secure, sustainable and understandable for tenants and providers in the long term, and that supports vulnerable people. I thank the previous Work and Pensions Secretary for getting the consultation started. It has to take some time, for supported housing rent levels are higher and the need is greater. I would like to address a couple of areas where we need to think more broadly—standards and supply. This feeds into the DCLG-DWP joint Select Committee report “Future of supported housing”, which recommended using a simple banded supported housing allowance taking into account regional variations and ensuring that London does not overly benefit, as well as dealing with anomalies in the system through a separate model that works with short-term accommodation for those of my constituents who live in refuges and hostels.
People are at the centre of the proposals that we bring forward. We should recognise that in the light of the debate about social care that we had earlier. Whether in social care or supported housing, different groups have different needs, and we must have systems that are attuned to this. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the built environment, I am very keen that we improve standards in our housing, because arguably we need homes for a lifetime. Government need to be more attuned to all parts of the mix when granting planning permissions, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) pointed out.
We need to understand that challenges in rural areas require a more holistic approach with regard to housing. A recent survey by one of my district councils frightened the people it consulted. In rural areas such as Stowlangtoft, Needham Market and Rattlesden, we need to gently explain to our constituents the nature of any changes that we are going to make. The great staff who work with them are often peripatetic and are asked to do a difficult job. With regard to space standards, people must not be put in too small houses, and housing must be flexible. For instance, houses should accommodate designs for a wet room, modifications, and places for support equipment. We can do this, but we need to think across Departments. It is also important to utilise modern methods such as quality insulation, which brings down the cost of housing for these vulnerable groups. It seems anomalous that we do not build to a very high standard that saves the very poorest people costs on their everyday household bills.
The Home Group housing association has 1,842 homes in the pipeline, some of which are in my constituency. We want to see those built so that people can have  proper homes. What is being fed back from my local authorities is not just the lack of integrated supported housing but the need to ensure that it is part of the planning process, and that many wardens can live in the areas that they help to serve. Recent statistics show that 90,000 carers are over 85. This problem is going to grow, not go away. Our older people want to stay near the communities that they know and love, and younger people, like my young constituent who found it hard to travel to work because of her health requirements, need to be nearer to their places of work. We need systems that are attuned to our homeless people and refuges.
I look forward to a positive report on 31 October that gives clarity in looking at a banded system of sheltered, standard supported and specialised supported housing to ensure appropriate care and dignity for every one of our constituents.

David Drew: I am pleased to take part in this important debate. It is important that the voice of the supported housing sector, with which I have a long association, is heard.
In their joint report, the Select Committees concluded that, overall, the sector offers good value for money and maximises tenants’ quality of life, but that some parts of it need attention. I do not know why the Government did not start by dealing with the parts that need attention, rather than concentrating on the sector as a whole. Overall, it is in pretty fine fettle and just needs more money and support than it is currently getting.
George Lansbury did more than anyone to fight the Poor Law, but if he were here today he would be staggered by the similarities between his time and our own. Underlying the Government’s approach seems to be talk about the undeserving poor. I always find that idea deeply upsetting, and we should all do our damnedest to make sure that policy is never written with that in mind.
Among the many submissions that we have received, there seems to be one major cry for help, namely that the level of uncertainty has caused immense problems. I welcome the fact that the Government have climbed down on the question of local housing allowance. Their attachment to the cap struck me as a bizarre way of dealing with those who need the most help.
I also welcome the fact that the Government will publish their final report next week. We look forward to that with expectation, and we hope that it will do the things that it should. In that regard, the Government could do no better than to look at the suggestions on page 5 of the report written by Frontier Economics for the Salvation Army; I mentioned that report in my intervention on the Minister.
The Salvation Army report looks at three issues that need to be addressed. The first is cost drivers, which include different geographical areas—that has been referred to—accommodation size and accommodation landlord type. The second issue considered in the report is how the cost compares with that of other provision. There is a range of providers of different types of housing, across a very wide spectrum, including housing for older people and the disabled, who need more generic  help; provision for specialist groups, such as substance abusers and former service personnel, who have been mentioned; and very specialised provision, such as refuges for women who have faced abuse. The third issue considered in the report, and the one that is of most concern to many of us, is the top-up provided because of the nature of the support that very vulnerable people need. I ask the Government, when they make their final and complete judgment on the sector next week, to start with those important aspects.
The sector has faced difficulties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) has said. The last few years have been very difficult, and we must recognise that we have to move forward. There has been a loss of supported accommodation, and uncertainty has resulted in underinvestment. I hope that the Government will take notice of that and reverse some of the cuts that they have imposed. Dare I say I hope they will recognise that the sector offers good value for money in the support that it provides? It invests its own money alongside that of the voluntary sector to make sure that our most vulnerable people are looked after as well as they possibly can be.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am afraid that I must now reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Derek Thomas: I refer Members to my declaration regarding supported housing in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who held a fantastic debate on this subject in Westminster Hall two weeks ago, and to other Members who have worked so hard to make sure that the concerns of the most vulnerable people in supported housing have been heard.
This year, we are celebrating the 100th birthday of Leonard Cheshire. In my west Cornwall constituency, I have a supported home run by Leonard Cheshire Disability. It does fantastic work, and yesterday I met the charity to hear again about its history of supporting our most vulnerable people over many years.
The YMCA is very active in my constituency. When I worked for it as a volunteer many years ago, I used to interview young people who required supported housing. Such housing was provided for a couple of years to help them to gain independence and rebuild their lives. Even now, despite the uncertainty of funding, it is developing 19 new homes in which to support young people.
In my constituency, DCH—Devon and Cornwall Housing—has forums where young people are supported, particularly those from care. One of my most enjoyable surgeries is when I go along there to work with them, but also to listen to them and respond to their concerns. Many years ago, long before I entered the Commons, I set up supported housing, and I have spent a lot of my time looking at how to support people with severe learning disabilities to stay close to their often elderly parents, but also gain their independence. Mencap does some fantastic work in my constituency, and for some time it supported my brother-in-law.
What is common to these organisations is that they recognise the need to reform how the funding for supported housing is provided. They also have in common the fact that they are delivering a step change in increasing their effort to assist all the people they support towards enjoying much greater independence. There has been a real change in recent years in how supported housing services work. They are seeking greater independence for the people they support, however much the rest of society may take the view that such people cannot live independently. They are doing more work on improving their access to education and further education; in particular, the forums are doing great work in this regard. They are also doing more work in providing opportunities for employment and preparing such people for employment. That fits very well with what the Government are doing through the Disability Confident campaign. I was grateful to hear the Prime Minister say that supported homes will no longer be included in the local housing allowance cap.
These organisations are doing fantastic work in my constituency of west Cornwall and Scilly, as are others around the country, in supporting our most vulnerable people who often cannot, for good reason, be cared for at home. They have a right to have a home of their own and to enjoy the same kind of accommodation and quality of life that everyone in the House does. It is therefore right that we should provide for them a secure, sustainable funding agreement. I look forward to the announcement on Tuesday and to the forthcoming debate on making sure we do the very best we can for these fantastic people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in need of supported housing.

Gavin Newlands: I am delighted to take part in this timely debate. I of course welcome the Government’s latest U-turn in saying that the LHA cap will not be imposed on supported housing, although I have no earthly idea why they proposed imposing it in the first place. I look forward to next week’s announcement about how the UK Government will fund supported housing, as the devil will most certainly be in the detail. We need to reverse the cuts that have so negatively affected supported housing in the austerity era.
The months of uncertainty inflicted on the supported housing sector have been unfair and unnecessary, and show a failure to recognise the fantastic and all too necessary work done to support some of the most vulnerable in society. I have seen at first hand in my constituency the good work done by providers such as Blue Triangle in Renfrew, which provides housing to those who have been made homeless, and Bridgewater in Erskine, which provides safe accommodation for elderly people while enabling them to retain their independence.
As other Members have mentioned, supported housing provides essential services and it is vital that they are properly funded to help those most in need. Some of the people most in need of assistance are women and children fleeing abusive relationships. I hope, but do not expect, that the Government’s response next week will offer a long-term and sustainable funding formula for refuges. Refuges are an absolute necessity to ensure a safe route for those leaving a violent relationship. They perform a different function from other forms of  supported housing and their distinct nature must be recognised. That must be captured in the Government’s response next week.
Refuges are categorised as short-term accommodation alongside other forms of housing, but they carry out a very different function and we cannot allow the Government to implement a one-size-fits-all approach to fund supported housing that might not meet the needs of refuges. Their distinct nature was highlighted by the recent cross-party report on housing funding from the Communities and Local Government, and Work and Pensions Committees, which has already been mentioned. It said:
“Refuges for women and children have unique challenges within the supported housing sector”
and called on the Government to
“work with Women’s Aid and refuge providers to devise a separate funding mechanism for this sector”.
I am keen for the Minister to respond directly to the point about how the changing funding model meets the distinct challenges facing women’s refuges and the wider housing sector. Will he confirm whether a bespoke funding model will be developed for those life-saving services and accept the invitation to work with Women’s Aid and others to find a system that supports refuges?
The uncertainty around the supported housing sector and the shortfall in the number of refuge places force women and children to continue to live in violent relationships, putting their health, welfare and possibly even their lives at risk. Today’s U-turn, although welcome, does not go far enough to offer the long-term funding that these vital services need to enable them to continue to offer the support required. A failure to offer long-term and sustainable funding for refuges next week will result in more services closing their doors for good. In many cases, refuges being closed or full will push women to return to an abusive relationship.
Shamefully, demand for refuges far outstrips supply and the uncertainty over the new funding model for supported housing has only added to that problem. We cannot allow ourselves to close the door on women and children who are looking for help, often at the most critical and stressful time of their lives. We simply cannot allow that to happen. The Government must work with Women’s Aid and others to find a system that provides a secure, separate and ultimately sustainable funding settlement for refuges. Nothing else will suffice.

Eddie Hughes: I want briefly to introduce a tone of optimism and positivity to the debate, although before I do so I need to refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which says that I chair the board of a 20,000-house housing association across 18 separate authorities. I am not speaking from that perspective, however.
Before I came to the House, I worked for YMCA Birmingham for three years. When I joined the YMCA, it was a recent recipient of approximately £1 million from the Homes and Communities Agency, which allowed it to build 33 units of move-on accommodation. Those who know the sector will understand that if someone is in supported accommodation, they need somewhere to go for the next step of their journey, so the delivery of those 33 units was critical in freeing up the pipeline to allow us to move people along their journey. That was three and a half years ago.
Move forward three years, and just as I was leaving the YMCA we had it confirmed that we had £850,000 of homelessness change funding from the HCA and the Department of Health that allows us to renovate a homelessness hostel we have in Northfield—a 72-bed hostel in not very good condition. The ground floor of that hostel will now have en suite accommodation as well as training and health facilities. That is an absolutely amazing development for the people who use that service. They will have not just great quality accommodation, but training facilities on site that will help them to get employment. It will also allow health visitors to come in and give them the healthcare they need.
The YMCA has been around since 1844. George Williams founded it and Birmingham set up its YMCA fairly soon after. I am reliably informed by my old chief exec that one of the first meetings of the board of YMCA Birmingham referred to the distinct lack of funds; 173 years later, YMCA Birmingham appears to have coped quite well. Such organisations adapt and change to the circumstances they find themselves in.
The YMCA has set up some social enterprises. For example, Adele Biddle and Emma Rhymes are working tirelessly to generate income from their social enterprises, which they hope will ultimately fund and support some excellent housing activities. Today, we have the announcement from the Prime Minister that the LHA cap will not apply. What do I say? I say some organisations battle on regardless of what the Government do. They continue to do their—

Mary Glindon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eddie Hughes: I am nearly finished. Trust me, I will be quick.
Organisations battle on regardless of what Governments of any persuasion do and they continue to offer excellent work. Occasionally, and fortunately, they are subsidised and supported by an excellent Conservative Government. The YMCA has produced hundreds of thousands of pounds and it will, no doubt, continue to deliver its excellent work for at least another 173 years.

Susan Elan Jones: Optimism and positivity: I really hope that is what we get from the Government next week. I really hope they commit to dealing with the funding gap and the details of this proposal. I welcome the metaphorical rabbit that was pulled out of the Prime Minister’s metaphorical hat this morning, but I have to say it is a great shame that it took almost two years for it to happen. There has been a great deal of concern on the part of pretty much everyone.
In Wales there are, at a conservative estimate, at least 38,500 supported housing units. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) mentioned earlier, there are real concerns about how any changes relate to Wales and the block grant. I hope the Government will answer that fully next week. In Wales, as in all the other nations and regions of Great Britain, a huge range of projects comes under the banner of supported housing. They include hostels for homeless people, domestic  abuse refuges, and a range of supported accommodation projects aimed at supporting people to move on to independent tenancies. In my own area, there is an excellent women’s refuge run by Welsh Women’s Aid. There are projects run by Hafan Cymru that support people as they move on in their lives, and Tŷ Nos hostel in Wrexham can house 16 roofless people on a short-term basis.
Homelessness should be a concern for all of us. Last summer, I met concerned local residents from my constituency who formed a group called Help Wrexham Homeless. They are rightly calling for more night shelter places, which requires more security of funding. It is vital that that comes to our area. I pay tribute to Wrexham Council’s Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham—AVOW—for its work in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) mentioned the recent excellent report, “The Salvation Army’s Supported Housing: Analysis of the Costs of Provision”. The Salvation Army is a huge provider of supported accommodation right across the UK. The report made the startling point that had the Government continued with the system they originally wanted for local housing allowance, the rates would have borne no relation to the cost of providing supported housing. It also made the point—I hope the Government will take great notice of this—that long-term funding security needs to be offered.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady mentions the Salvation Army, which does excellent work and helps 6,000 individual tenants. Does she agree that direct Government contact with the Salvation Army might helpful, if the Minister has not already done it, to gauge its opinion on supported housing?

Susan Elan Jones: Very much so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I recommend the Salvation Army report and I believe the Government should answer fully all the points made in it.
Many Members will remember eight years ago a gentleman by the name of David Cameron—he subsequently became Prime Minister—giving the Hugo Young memorial lecture. In his speech, he committed to greater support for voluntary groups and charities, expressing the view that they should play a key role in helping people escape poverty. That was called the big society. I listened to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), but this is not about charities carrying on regardless of how useless the Government are at listening to them; it is about us working together, and I really hope that next week, when the Government come to the House, they will come with new heart, a new vision and new security on this issue.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is absolutely right to say that this is a happy day for the House of Commons: the Prime Minister has made an important remark on policy; the Minister has said the Government will respond to the consultation on supported housing by broadly adopting the recommendations in the joint Select Committee report; and Members on both sides of the House, housing associations and charities have welcomed the direction of travel, and we will have the details in a week’s time.
I thank my co-Chair for the joint Select Committee report, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was on the Committee and knows a lot about the sector, other Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who was on the Committee as well, and the Chairs of the two Select Committees, who commissioned our report. We should also warmly thank Lord Best and the five housing associations—I do not have time to name them all—that road-tested our recommendations and improved the detail. We should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who has held two debates on this subject.
Above all, what this shows—and what today’s debate shows—is why Select Committees are important, why working cross-party really does matter, which is not something that all new Members seem to have yet grasped, and why Parliament should be proud that such a report can have a real impact on the Government. It was delivered in May, just before the election and long recess, and the Government will be making the announcement in late October. This, then, is a good day.
It is worth reminding those listening of the key recommendations, which have the backing of the sector and now the Government: a separate supported housing allowance; a limited number of regional variations; tenants eligible for supported housing allowance only if they are in accommodation that is regularly inspected; national standards to monitor the quality of the supported housing allowance accommodation; and a separate funding system—this is important—for women’s refuges, about which I hope the Minister will say something later.
I regret that not all charities in their briefings seemed to have read the recommendations. In its response, Shelter wrote that it had
“responded to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s inquiry into the issue”,
but it made no comment on the recommendations. I encourage all charities to look closely at Select Committee reports and endorse them where they find them useful.
Inevitably, success has many fathers, so it is not surprising that the Labour party and the Scottish nationalists—I even heard a reference to Andy Burnham at one point—have wished to add their names to the credits at the end of this film. In my view, it does not matter who tries to take the credit; what matters is that Parliament has had a significant say in shaping Government policy. I hope that the announcement next week will confirm the details, although there are questions that I hope the Government will cover—I know that the Minister will take note of this. We need answers to the questions on funding, the number of regions, the timetable for implementation, the quality assurance and the refuges themselves. I hope that all this in turn will trigger announcements from the housing associations on the go ahead for the projects that have been put on hold but that will enable us to have more supported housing.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Once again, we see Labour pushing the Government into a more sensible and reasonable course of action, and we await the details of the proposals next week. It is about time, too. The Minister said nothing to enlighten us about why the Government prevaricated over this  decision for so long. Their consultation exercise ended in February this year, and we have waited for six months since the publication of the joint Select Committee report, which produced a huge amount of evidence to show that the local housing allowance rate was a totally
“inappropriate starting point for a new funding mechanism for supported housing”.
That view has been reiterated by organisations and charities throughout the housing sector. What they have said demonstrates that the proposals for an LHA cap in the supported housing sector made no sense and that the cap would have been hugely damaging to the lives of hundreds of vulnerable people in our communities.
It is clear from the briefing that we received from the Riverside Group that a number of national studies have shown that supported housing provides excellent value for money, as well as having very good outcomes in reducing health problems and care and criminal justice costs. They also keep many people out of full-time residential social care, which has a considerable bearing on the previous debate. The Government should therefore be thinking about how to support the supported housing sector. What we heard earlier today was welcome, but I do not think they fully understand the impact of their delay and indecision. We know that 2,000 planned supported housing developments have been postponed and more than 800 cancelled, and that 22 existing schemes face closure—and that is quite apart from the impact on individuals who have been extremely anxious.
Let me give an example from my constituency. The one-bedroom local housing allowance cap in Durham is £74.79. The cost of the average supported housing scheme for people with learning difficulties and mental health needs is £164.73, nearly three times the LHA cap. No wonder people have been so concerned about the issue.
My constituency also has a specific problem caused by a hospital closure programme. A specialist supported housing scheme is keeping people out of hospital and is costing £379 per week because they are extremely vulnerable. We need to hear from the Government whether their proposals will cover such schemes, as well as kick-starting development in the sector for people with multiple needs. We also need to hear whether the needs of young people will be addressed. We were given a very good briefing by the YMCA about the shortfall in its funding, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how she will ensure that young people’s needs are met.

Maria Caulfield: I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce this afternoon that there will be no housing benefit cap for tenants of supported housing. Many Members in all parts of the House have drawn attention in earlier debates to the difference that supported housing can make to individuals. I look forward to the announcements next week and hope that there will be some more positive news then.
In the short time that I have, I want to highlight one example in my constituency of the difference that supported housing can make to the lives of young people. Newhaven Foyer, which is run by the Salvation Army, looks after young people who have either been in care or have been at risk of homelessness because they come from difficult family backgrounds. I have had the privilege of meeting some of those young people, who have told me their stories.  I spoke to one young man who said that before he went into Newhaven Foyer he had intended to commit a crime to be arrested and be sent to prison, so that he would have a roof over his head and some food of an evening. That cannot be a future that we want for any young person in this country.
Not only is the rent paid for the young people at the Foyer, but the service charge pays for support workers to help them to make a fresh start in life. Those workers help young people to learn how to budget and pay bills, ensure that they get to college in the mornings when they do not particularly want to go, help them into apprenticeships, help them to learn how to write CVs and help them to learn to live with other people.
One young girl told me about her family. Her mum was an alcoholic who was often drunk, so she had to bring herself and her sister up on her own. For her 16th birthday, her mum bought her a bottle of whisky, and drank it before lunchtime, so she got no birthday present at all. This is the sort of background these young people have come from, and supported housing is giving them that fresh start.
In a way, supported housing is a Conservative policy, because it gives people a fresh start regardless of their background, or where they have come from, or how difficult an upbringing they have had. Supported housing can give them the tools to get on in life and allow them to make the most of their talents and aspirations. It is a philosophy that I passionately believe in.
The Minister was right to say in his opening remarks that it is also of net fiscal benefit to the country. For some people, it can make a difference overall of £940 a year in benefits, and if there was no supported housing, we would be paying a lot more than that. For the country, the net benefit is over £3.6 billion a year. It is money well spent and, more importantly, it transforms lives.
I could cite numerous examples from my constituency. BHT Sussex provides addiction services and supported housing for people with alcohol and drug addiction, through many years of an abstinence-based approach. I have met people whose lives have been transformed and who have beaten addiction and are now contributing to society. That is not just rescuing their lives; it is rescuing their families’ lives, too, and is making a big difference to the country as a whole.
I welcome today’s news, and am optimistic about next week’s announcements.

Jess Phillips: I also welcome the announcements. I think I have asked for the local housing allowance rate to be removed in the mind of policy makers from supported housing every single time I have spoken in this House, so I am pretty chuffed that that was finally heard.
The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is a passionate speaker, and it is nice to hear somebody in the House who sounds a bit like me, but I do not share much of his optimism, because when I have walked around the streets of Birmingham during the past seven years I now step over the bodies of people who have nowhere to live, and that was not the case  before. In Birmingham, a man was found dead in the streets because he was cold and homeless. With the greatest respect, therefore, although the support of services like YMCA in Birmingham is brilliant, 33 beds for a population of 1 million is a woeful figure.

Eddie Hughes: I said there were an additional 33 beds. There are 300 units of accommodation across Birmingham.

Jess Phillips: And we would need an additional 300 to get anywhere close to dealing with the problem.

Rachel Maclean: I have worked in Birmingham for over 25 years and can confirm that the problem to which the hon. Lady refers has existed for a very long time.

Jess Phillips: I have lived there all my life and have worked in homelessness services for most of my adult life, and I can absolutely guarantee that right now it is worse than I have ever known it. For me to say otherwise and be positive about the situation would be to tell a lie, and I am not willing to do that.
Given my own experiences, it will be no surprise that I am going to stick up for refuge accommodation. I take issue with the Minister’s assertions that no one is turned away, because currently in this country one in four women are turned away; that is 78 women every day and 78 children every single day who find that there is nowhere for them to live. That is what is happening now. So the future assertions about refuge are very welcome, but, as was stressed in the brilliant report by Members, which has been mentioned already and is worthy of praise, women’s refuge needs a specific and different model taken off-stream, and it needs sustainability. I want to talk a little bit about why sustainability matters.
After the most recent general election—there have been more than there should have been in the time I have been here—I recall the Prime Minister commiserating with her colleagues who had lost their seats. How difficult that must have been for her, having caused the demise of their jobs. However, where I worked, I had to put every single member of staff on notice every January. Everyone was given a notice warning that their job might not be there in March because we lived hand to mouth on year-on-year funding. That is not the way I would operate my household income, and it is not the way to operate an organisation. It is not what the Government should want for the most vulnerable people in society, but that is what is happening in every supported housing charity in the country at the moment. Every single year, we had to put people on notice, and sometimes we would find out only on 30 March what funding we were going to have for the next year. There needs to be a sustainable funding pot.
I want to pick up on another thing the Minister said in his opening speech. He said he knew that demand was going to get higher. It is utterly shameful for him to stand at the Dispatch Box in this building and say, “We know it’s going to get worse. We know that more people are going to need supported accommodation.” There is one reason why the Government will need more supported accommodation for the people I have been dealing with: universal credit.
At the moment, if a woman is receiving benefits through tax credits, the money goes to her. There are lots of women across the country saving up money and putting it away, so that they can escape and will not need a refuge bed. However, under the new universal credit system, every single penny going into that household will be paid to one person. It does not take a genius to work out who usually gets the money in a household, so that money will now be going to the man. The woman, whose financial constraints are already so severe, will be limited even further by the Government’s proposals, which will not allow women to break free when they need to.
I have asked the Department for Work and Pensions whether it is monitoring who is getting the money in split payments, why people are asking for split payments and whether anyone has even asked for split payments. I have asked what data it is collecting about split payments and, funnily enough, the answer is always, “I’m sorry, we don’t collect that data.” The Government are not collecting data, and they are turning a blind eye to a group of people who are so vulnerable that they will be turning up on our doorsteps, at our surgeries and at our refuges, where they will be turned away because there is nowhere for them to go. On Tuesday, I want to see a sustainable plan that lasts for a term that is longer than five years. We have just been given another five-year term here, so how about we give that to them? We need a specific funding model for refuge services because, without it, people die.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the contribution from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I thank her for taking my intervention. Members on both sides have made some excellent points today and I really hope that the Ministers are listening; I am confident that they are. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the Minister’s opening remarks, in which he outlined the extensive investment and support that has gone into this sector over the course of this Parliament and the last one. This demonstrates the seriousness with which the Government are treating this critical issue for our communities and our society. Let us not forget that this has been achieved against a challenging and difficult financial backdrop. When we talk about what we are hoping to hear, let us look also at the record of investment that we have already delivered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) suggested.
I saw this provision for myself when I visited Dorothy Terry House in Redditch on one of my first constituency visits. It provides incredible enriching care for elderly and complex-needs patients, including people with dementia and a number of other needs. It has 42 highly specified one and two-bedroom apartments and communal areas designed to ensure that residents can lead an enriching life and have access to all the local amenities of Redditch on their doorstep. It has welcomed the announcement that the Prime Minister made at the Dispatch Box today. During my short time in Parliament, I have engaged extensively with representatives of the housing sector, including the National Housing Federation, which I am glad to see has welcomed this announcement. I am glad that the Government are listening, and I have seen Ministers taking extensive notes about the points made today, so I look forward to hearing about what they will bring forward on Tuesday.
I know that Government will be doing this, but I call on them to consider the recommendations of the report by the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, to which many Members have referred and which contains some excellent points. It is important to have a separate funding model for refuges and hostels, because they play an important role for women and children who are the victims of domestic violence, as we have heard already. We take that seriously, and we want those important services that play a vital role in our communities to be protected. Our Prime Minister also takes it seriously, and when she was Home Secretary I went with her to a supported facility that puts on treatment and programmes for women in Birmingham. I saw how she listened to the families and women and how much she took from that meeting.
As a new Member, I am glad for the opportunity to take part in Opposition day debates, and I think I have taken part in every single one. I do not always agree with the Opposition motion, which is why I choose to exercise my right to vote or not to vote, as the case may be—[Interruption.] I think that is democracy. I am here to decide after taking part and sitting and listening to the debate and the arguments.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman came up with four tests for the Government’s consultation that he expects to see next week, but I want to ask him about one thing. He will obviously be critical of what comes forward, but I would like him to take the proposal seriously and to engage in a serious discussion about the necessary funding and about how he and his party would fund the need in this area without racking up more debt or increasing taxes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Without interventions, the remaining 10 hon. or right hon. Members who wish to speak will be able to do so for four minutes each. If there are interventions, which is perfectly legitimate, that prospect might be imperilled. I will leave it there, and Members must take responsibility for trying to help each other. They are all on the same side of the House, so it should not be that difficult.

Mike Hill: The proposed changes to funding for supported housing, namely the implementation of the local housing allowance cap, has created considerable uncertainty for the sector and for people who live in supported housing in Hartlepool. The proposed funding model of implementing the LHA cap and then devolving additional top-up funding to local councils would have created a postcode lottery, meaning that tenants in certain areas could lose out and be forced to make up any shortfall in funding.
Rents and service charges in housing association supported housing schemes are regulated, but they are usually higher than in general social housing due to the extra cost of building adaptations and meeting tenants’ care and support needs. A typical example of such accommodation is Bamburgh Court in Hartlepool, which I have had the pleasure of visiting. Bamburgh Court provides extra care housing to help over-55s with a range of care needs to live independently within the community.  There are 72 properties at Bamburgh Court, including 41 one-bedroom flats, 24 two-bedroom bungalows and two three-bedroom houses. Care for residents is provided 24/7 through personal support plans.
Bamburgh Court is a fine example of a modern, state-of-the-art complex for the provision of supported independent living for the vulnerable and people with special needs. The weekly rent for a property is £84.89, with a £38.04 service charge to cover all maintenance, fire safety measures and general upkeep. Under current housing benefit rules, most tenants qualify for the cost of their accommodation in full. However, despite their need for specialist accommodation, under the LHA cap these vulnerable people would have received only the maximum of £97.81 for a two-bedroom property and £83.78 for a one-bedroom property. If residents had been forced to fund the shortfall, that would have meant serious hardship and the possible loss of their homes.
Such accommodation as that run by Thirteen housing group at Bamburgh Court gives comfort, support, hope and security to so many people. Such schemes would have been in serious jeopardy if the proposed cap were to be implemented. In my original speech I would have urged the Government to think again, and I hope that next Tuesday’s statement will prove that they indeed intend to do so. Given that only a partial statement on the cap was made this morning, I await the full statement with bated breath.

Marie Rimmer: Across the two boroughs I serve in St Helens South and Whiston there are 2,894 people living in and benefiting from supported housing. These are people and families who have fled violence in their home. There are 54 homes across the boroughs that provide support to help them build capacity to manage and enjoy family life again. These are people with several and, in some cases, severe disabilities. These are young adults, and occasionally young people, who have found themselves with no home and often no family to turn to. These are young adults who have turned to alcohol and other substances to camouflage the pain of broken family relationships. These are homeless people, some former servicemen and some former prisoners. A significant number are older people who have been encouraged to give up their three-bedroom homes—homes they have built up over several decades—and move into sheltered housing to provide a home for their family.
The purpose of supported housing is to prevent people from reaching a crisis point and placing heavy demands on other, more costly public services, such as when a pensioner trips and falls at home and has to go into hospital. It is therefore important to ensure that there is funding for such housing in the new system and that the Government do not create an artificial distinction between short-term emergency accommodation and long-term accommodation.
The system needs to recognise the dynamic of people’s needs and living arrangements. The issue before us today is about not only the availability of funding but the availability of places to support people. I thank the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was busy over the weekend adopting Labour’s plans  for house building. Some say that he is bidding to become leader of the Conservative party, but the quickest, simplest and cheapest method to build houses is to give certainty to social landlords across the country who, in many cases, have delayed and abandoned plans to build new rooms in the supported housing sector. In Knowsley, 227 planned units were subject to a lengthy pause because of the lack of certainty, and there is a risk that once those units, plus 150 homes being built in St Helens, are fully built, they could be taken out of the supported housing sector altogether and let as housing with no support at all.
The Communities Secretary was slapped down by the Chancellor. The supported housing sector has been waiting for an indication of Government policy since February so that it can prepare and plan the funding models for future developments. Instead, the Government’s dithering is having a chilling effect on development and much-needed provision.
I appreciate that the Government originally delayed the implementation of their 2015 proposals, giving them time to upskill themselves on the needs of supported housing residents, but the Government have taken two years, they have consulted widely and the sector has made many submissions. One question was on how they can ensure that local allocation of funding by local authorities matches local need. Indeed, we are still waiting for the answer.
The Government’s proposal to devolve a set figure via a top-up grant, in light of shrinking council budgets, is not the answer. The devolved figure is a set amount and will not take account of changes throughout the year. It is wholly unacceptable that those in greatest need are materially worse off because of where they live in the borough. We do not accept such a provision on healthcare, and we should not accept it on housing needs.

Jo Platt: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. First, may I welcome the Government’s U-turn, which the Prime Minister announced earlier today? Although we await further details, I am pleased the Government have finally listened to the multiple charities, housing providers and two Select Committees, which told them in no uncertain terms that there is no correlation between supported housing costs and LHA. The Government’s proposal would have left constituencies such as mine deeply disadvantaged, with care provision based on a postcode lottery.
Although we have heard that the Government do not now propose to use LHA as a measure for supported housing, we are still none the wiser as to how they will fund it. As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the north-west, I ask the Government to provide assurances to my constituents that our region will not be underfunded, as the previous proposal would have meant. Supported housing schemes locally have been a successful way of transforming services, while enhancing the lives of our most vulnerable through independent living arrangements, all with an individual story of success. Unless the Government now offer a comprehensive offer to replace their previous policy, local charities have warned that this could risk the recovery of those residents with mental health conditions, increase the demand on the already strained NHS, and lead to a spike in evictions and homelessness.
We are talking about the most vulnerable in our society: victims of domestic abuse; those made homeless; individuals who suffer from physical and learning disabilities; and the elderly who are otherwise unable to care for themselves. First, the Government left them with the uncertainty and anxiety of a cap which does not meet their care costs, and they are now being left with the anxiety of what will replace the Government’s policy, which is simply a dereliction of duty by the Government. I hope they will act urgently to bridge that uncertainty.
Now that the Government are considering their new proposal, I ask them to consider two points, the first of which is that local authority budgets must be protected and supported. The previous proposal would have placed an enormous strain on local authorities to process top-up payments, which were only ring-fenced by the Government for the first year of implementation. Therefore, whenever the Government come forward with an alternative funding system I urge them to consider the impact it will have on local authorities, which deserve to receive the funding and support they require to assist the residents of supported housing. Secondly, the funding model must be a fair system which provides equal assistance across the country. The previous proposal would have underfunded regions such as the north-west, left tenants relying on local authority top-up funds, and put tenants at risk of eviction and homelessness. Any future proposal must distribute supported housing support fairly and meet the care needs of every tenant.
The previous arbitrary cap has already caused immense stress and anxiety to thousands of people who were unsure whether their supported housing payments would meet their costs. Today, these residents are even more uncertain about their situation moving forward. These include residents with mental health challenges and learning difficulties, who simply should not be subjected to this undue stress. I therefore call on the Government to take this opportunity to apologise to these tenants of supported housing for the uncertainty and anxiety this has caused, and to adopt the Select Committee’s recommendations. The Government should also provide assurances to the residents of supported housing, as well as to local authorities, and to the incredible charities and housing groups providing these vital services, that the Government are committed.

Emma Hardy: I recently held a series of events in my constituency called the “Big conversation”, and I was pleased to visit an open day on supported housing at the Salvation Army hostel in Hull, with representatives from Emmaus and the Hull Resettlement Project, among others. The real impact these organisations have on people’s lives is heartening. One companion from Emmaus described what Emmaus had given him as “a life package”. He said that it had given him more than a home—it had given him work and a family, too—and without it he would again be on the streets.
The very idea that such incredible organisations could be at risk because of delays and uncertainty is abhorrent. Yes, the cost of supported housing is more expensive than that of rented property, but supported housing is cost-effective. The National Housing Federation says that supported housing actually saves the public purse  an average of £940 per year, and, depending on the type of scheme, the savings can be even greater—for example, for people with learning disabilities it could be £6,000 per year. Yes, although it is great that the Prime Minister is giving in to Labour party pressure and abandoning the Government’s plans to cap housing benefit at LHA level, the devil will be in the detail on this. She has not told us what the Government plan to replace that funding with, and they must get the plans right.
I have a few questions for the Government. Do they still want to make their proposals fit in with universal credit, as they promised in 2011? If so, how are they going to do that while abandoning the local housing allowance cap? Do they still wish to make their proposals fit with a locally based fund? If so, how will they ensure that investment does not gravitate towards areas with higher property prices and that those in supported housing in places such as Hull are not punished for living in areas with low property prices? Do they accept that any funding formula must provide for choice, control, equality and independent living and ensure that the real costs of supported housing are met? If so, when will they offer the certainty that the supported housing sector needs and publish plans for a supported housing funding formula to do just that? Will they please review the local housing allowance rates for the private rented sector to prevent homelessness and reduce the need for supported housing in the first place?
All societies should be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable and needy. The whole country will judge each and every Member who fails to support those who need us the most.

Alison Thewliss: This has been a long and convoluted debate, starting back in 2011 and continuing through 2015 and 2016 and up to now. It was said earlier that it is good that the Government are listening, but surely it would have been a lot more logical for them to have listened first, before they acted and threw the sector into such chaos. Nevertheless, I am glad that they have listened. I pay tribute to those in the sector throughout the UK, including the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation. I pay particular tribute to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and to Zhan McIntyre and Jeremy Hewer, who have done a huge amount of work on this issue, making sure that we are all kept well informed about the developments in Scotland.
Like other Members, I challenge the Government on some of the detail. At the very least, there should be no detriment to any housing provider—no housing provider should lose out as a result of the future proposals. I challenge the Government to tell us the level of funding for supported accommodation that will be considered reasonable. There has been some debate about the cost of supported accommodation, which varies widely from sector to sector and from specialist provider to specialist provider. We need to understand what a reasonable cost actually is, because there can be such huge variations, depending on the type of housing provided.
We need to look into the funding assumptions for the years ahead, because we know from the National Housing Federation that 85% of developments have been pulled because planning assumptions could not be made on the basis of the funding that was going to be available.  That was compounded by the 1% rent reduction imposed on housing associations in England, which meant that they could not act on the funding plans they had made, and there was a subsequent impact on house building and housing provision.
I was tempted to read from the transcript of the debate in June last year, because much of what I wanted to say today was still true, until the Prime Minister sprang her U-turn. I have previously made the point about the time limits on short-term accommodation. Will there be a time limit for people in short-term temporary accommodation? Not everybody will be ready to move on at the point at which someone has set a time limit. Local providers need flexibility to ensure that people are protected.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations asked specifically for any new funding model to be piloted and evaluated before it is fully rolled out. It also asked for the implementation of any recommendation to be deferred until the completion of the universal credit roll-out in 2022. Perhaps the Minister can give us a little more information on those issues.
Scottish Women’s Aid has asked for clarification on the shared accommodation rate and for particular provision to be made for cases of domestic violence, similar to the easement in the jobseeker’s allowance system, to provide flexibility for women.
Members have not given a huge amount of attention to the wide range of conclusions and recommendations in the report, which I was glad to be part of producing. It recommends that attention be given to the oversight arrangements for housing in supported accommodation in England. The report says that the Select Committees believe that
“the oversight arrangements in Scotland are better than they are in England,”
and that
“lessons can be learned from the Scottish system to make the system of oversight in England simpler and more robust.”
I urge the Government to look at the Scottish system, because it is very robust.
The report recommends that a capital grant scheme is introduced for new supported accommodation and that the funding mechanism reflects actual costs. It also recommends that the Government consider the housing benefit rate for 18 to 21-year-olds, because they should be supported when they leave supported accommodation. In England there is currently a disincentive for them to leave supported accommodation because they will not be eligible for housing benefit.

Helen Hayes: I am pleased to contribute to this debate. With the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I was co-chair of the recent joint inquiry of the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on the future of supported housing. I add my thanks to my co-chair, to members of both Committees who contributed to the inquiry, to the Clerks and advisers who helped the Committees, and to all the witnesses and organisations that submitted evidence to the inquiry.
It was a privilege to co-chair the inquiry and to read and hear evidence from residents and providers across the country on the difference that supported housing makes to individuals and communities. I am particularly pleased that we facilitated residents of supported housing, including a survivor of domestic abuse, a man with sight loss and Tessa Bolt who has Down’s syndrome, to give evidence in person to the Committee. Their evidence on the value of supported housing was particularly powerful.
Some 700,000 people in the UK benefit from supported housing and the different types and categories that those individuals fall into have been referenced today, and, as time is short, I will not rehearse them again. The inquiry received strong evidence that residents of supported housing benefit from better health outcomes, fewer hospital admissions, fewer visits to the GP and less social care support than their peers.
Supported housing costs £6.17 billion, but it delivers savings estimated at £3.5 billion. For older residents living in sheltered housing, there is an annual saving in reduced reliance on health and social care services of around £3,000 per year; for people with learning disabilities or mental health issues, the savings are estimated at between £12,500 and £15,500 a year. Those are not punitive savings delivered by budget cuts, but positive savings delivered through better outcomes.
It was, therefore, very hard to comprehend why the Government decided more than a year ago to throw the entire supported housing sector into disarray by announcing that core rent and service charges would be funded only up to the level of the local housing allowance cap, and that costs above that would be funded via a devolved fund administered by local authorities. The sector has been in total disarray now for more than a year, during which time 85% of new supported housing schemes have been put on hold, and many providers have been considering the financial sustainability of their existing supported housing provision.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon that the local housing allowance cap will not now apply to supported housing, but it is extraordinary that the Government have left the sector in such a state of uncertainty for so long, and that they have now come forward with an announcement that is only partial, and that does not set out either what the new approach to funding supported housing will be, or where the funding will come from. It is really important that the Government recognise the damage that the uncertainty of the past year has caused to the sector. The Select Committees recorded our concern that the Government seemed unaware—this was despite being presented with undeniable evidence—of both the severe impact their announcement was having on the sector and the urgency of the need to resolve these issues. I should like the Secretary of State to apologise for that, and to set out what the Government will do to repair the damage and to ensure that schemes that were put on hold as a consequence of the announcement get back on track as quickly as possible. It is really important that the Government set out in detail their plans, giving both Parliament and the sector an opportunity to scrutinise how the new funding arrangements will work.
In my last minute, I will mention two further recommendations of the joint inquiry. The first concerns the urgent need to address the shortfall in provision,  which was made worse by the chaos of the past year. The Committees recommended that the Government establish grant funding for new supported housing provision. I would welcome it if the Government were to provide confirmation today that they are taking that recommendation seriously.
The second area concerns refuges for survivors of domestic abuse. It was the Committees’ view that the Government should put in place funding and commissioning arrangements to ensure that there is a national network of domestic abuse refuges and to guarantee that support is there for the 12,000 women and 12,000 children who flee to a refuge every year in the UK. I hope to hear those reassurances from the Minister, and to read in detail next week that the Government have indeed taken seriously the recommendations of the Select Committees.

Anneliese Dodds: I will endeavour to be brief. First, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the Select Committee members for all their work on this issue.
It was a qualified relief to hear earlier that the Government have, to some extent, listened to sense and will not be going ahead with their original plans to restrict the funding for supported housing to LHA rates only. Many have already talked about the impacts that the original changes would have had on their constituencies. Certainly I calculated that, within Oxford East, we would have seen around a third of supported housing provision wiped out because the LHA rates are around a third below the average private rental cost. That would obviously have had a very negative impact on my constituency.
One point that has not come up so far is the need for any future funding solution to be ring-fenced. There was a difficult situation with another relevant funding stream, Supporting People funding. Some hon. Members have touched on that, although they did not name it per se. Supporting People funding was devolved to an extent, but it was not ring-fenced. Many local authority areas, including my area of Oxford, which is covered by Oxfordshire County Council, have faced the removal of all support for facilities such as homeless shelters. That has resulted in a reduction of about half of all shelter places—that is an accurate headcount—for homeless people in places such as Oxford in a time of record levels of rough sleeping.
We need to ensure that any future funding system is locally responsive, potentially reflecting regional costs, as many have advocated and as the Joint Select Committee report suggested. But we should also ensure that the funding is ring-fenced, because we really do not want it to leach away into other areas when local authorities are under such enormous pressure owing to cuts from central Government.
Many speakers have said that there is no relationship between the local housing allowance and the cost of supported housing. Of course that is the case, but it is also the case that in many areas the LHA bears very little relation to private rented costs per se. In my city of Oxford there are no—none, zero—family homes that are affordable under the current LHA. Home rental websites show that there is not a single one. I hope that  the Government’s reflection, albeit a rather tardy one, on supported housing will lead them to think more carefully about the nature of calculation of the LHA for all rented accommodation.

Wera Hobhouse: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today. It is, of course, a U-turn and the details need to be seen before the final judgment is out. Future proposals must be fair and compassionate, and should not be an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Supported housing covers a range of different housing types, but what is shared across all tenants—whether in Bath or across the country—is that they are in supported housing because they need support, and that support needs proper funding. There should not be the crass geographical differences that the previous proposals assumed. I hope that tenants will be at the forefront of the Government’s future proposals. Rent levels in supported housing are understandably higher than in other social housing. The now abandoned plans for top-up funding were a passing of responsibility from the Government to local authorities, which are already overstretched and underfunded. This must not be the case with future proposals, as it is not a sustainable and guaranteed way of funding supported housing.
The Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, backed by many of the supported housing industry’s organisations, have called for a supported housing allowance to give providers more certainty. I really believe that that is the way forward. It was precisely the uncertainty surrounding the cap that led to reports of housing associations cutting 85% of supported housing development after the proposals were announced. The numbers of those sleeping rough has already risen by 60% since March 2011, according to the National Audit Office. The NAO report repeatedly criticised the Government’s lack of cohesion in tackling homelessness, and the cap was merely a symptom of the disease. The Government must take a broader, more connected approach to all these issues.
I have already mentioned the issue of national disparities. Tenants should not face a postcode lottery, and that was a crucial concern of many providers before the cap proposals. I call on the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to scrap housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds. This policy only serves to push more young people into homelessness. People deserve a roof over their heads, whatever their age and wherever they live. These unfair disadvantages must end.
Finally, I call on the Government simply to give more funding for supported housing. Many of the existing problems caused by a complete lack of funding will remain, despite scrapping the cap. To starve supported housing of cash is to punish all those for whom life is already very hard.

Ruth George: I welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister at lunchtime and the assurances from the Minister in his speech. I give thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their work—in Select Committees and individually—in pushing forward these issues, and especially to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), whose Westminster Hall debate I attended on 10 October.
As colleagues have said, the Government need to recognise the impact of their policies on long-term sustainable funding for supported housing. I would like to emphasise the supported aspect of that housing, and we have heard many moving stories from Members on both sides of the House about the amazing work organisations in their constituencies do. That work is done by individuals who are often working on the minimum wage with some of our most vulnerable citizens and in some of the most difficult and patience-trying jobs we could imagine. This is really a vocation, not just a job, but those working in supported accommodation at the moment unfortunately often earn only the minimum wage. I really hope the Government will look at making sure that the funding supports quality of provision, as well as quality of employment and real careers for people who support those in supported housing.
May I propose one method of moving forward that will actually assist with the cost? I live in northern Derbyshire, in an area where we have a multitude of small borough councils, each with its own housing area. People in supported housing often wish to move into socially rented accommodation outside the area. That is particularly the case for women fleeing domestic violence—it is very important for them that they do not end up in the same community with the same problems. When the Minister looks at the new scheme, will he therefore see whether it will be possible for people in supported housing to apply to move into social housing and to get support in a different borough? That would save money, assist people and help free up places. At the moment, there are women in refuges in my constituency who would love to move over the border to where they have more support from friends and family, but they cannot do so, because they do not qualify for social housing in that area. I hope Ministers will look at that.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is not in his place, said new Members often seem not to understand the importance of working across the House, but I can assure him that, as a new Member, I absolutely do. I have just sent out to all Members an email about an all-party group on universal credit. I very much hope that we can all come together, look at our experiences in our constituencies and work to get some movement on that issue as well.

Bambos Charalambous: While I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today that the local housing allowance cap will be lifted, I fear that the damage has already been done to supported housing providers, including women’s refuges.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips): housing benefit is vital to women’s refuges. As non-profit organisations, they rely on the rental income from the women who stay with them to fund their services. However, LHA is set in line with the lowest 30% of market rents in a given area, and the rates will often not even meet the refuge’s rent charges, let alone provide the additional funds needed to maintain specialist emergency accommodation. The capping of LHA led to uncertainty and fear for women’s refuges, which are designed specifically to keep women safe and to offer them shelter and support until they can live independently without the threat of violence.
This morning, I spoke to Mary Mason of Solace Women’s Aid, which is a fantastic organisation that runs a women’s refuge in my constituency and in other areas of London. She told me that women seeking help in the refuge she runs face the most appalling danger and have been forced into homelessness. She further told me that any decrease in funding, including through the LHA cap, would have a very negative impact on women and children in danger. It was therefore entirely inappropriate that services like the Solace women’s refuge should have been subject to the LHA cap.
While I welcome today’s announcement from the Prime Minister about the lifting of the LHA cap, I await the detail next week and hope that all vulnerable people in supported housing receive the funding they so desperately need.

Debbie Abrahams: This has been a comprehensive debate with many good contributions from all parts of the House, if probably more so from the Opposition. There has been a cautious welcome for the Prime Minister’s announcement that there will not be a cap in relation to supported housing and LHA—an issue of real concern.
Among the 25 speakers were my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government —and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). A lot of people identified that it was completely inappropriate in the first place to propose that supported housing should be based on an LHA rate given that it meets very different needs. Several key themes emerged. On the need for sustainability around the funding, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned the importance of ring-fencing it, and the need for greater co-operation between Departments. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who organised the Westminster Hall debate on this issue a few weeks ago, has probably contributed to the position that we are in now.
Many Members wanted to thank local providers and charities. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said that what providers do is more of a vocation—that they do it out of love for it. However, we cannot take advantage of that, and we must recognise it in the support that we give them.

Paul Farrelly: Welcome as the Government’s U-turn is, does my hon. Friend agree that their change of mind barely scratches the surface of the overall crisis in the provision of supported and affordable housing?

Debbie Abrahams: I will come on to that. Obviously, we look forward to seeing the detail next Tuesday, but yes, we must not underestimate what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) always makes very pertinent points, but I would like to pick out her comments about Government policy contributing to potentially driving people into refuges because they have no financial support through the single householder.
It is so important that we have had this debate on supported housing after years of uncertainty from this Government hanging over the heads of some of our most vulnerable tenants. The Government’s announcement earlier today is therefore welcome. I want to reaffirm a point that others have made in the course of the debate. The term “supported housing” covers accommodation for a number of different groups in our society, but one thing that binds them all is the degree of vulnerability of these tenants. This form of housing supports older people in sheltered accommodation, disabled people and those with learning disabilities, people at high risk of homelessness, and survivors of domestic violence and their children, as well as armed service veterans, care leavers, and ex-offenders. The importance of what is provided through supported housing cannot therefore be overestimated.
The Government have asked those groups to wait for nearly two years to find out whether their accommodation is secure. Although, as I say, we welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today indicating that LHA will not be extended to the social or supported housing sectors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was exactly right to say that the devil is in the detail. He cautioned that whatever comes out of next week’s statement, it must recognise not just that there has been a two-year hiatus for the supported housing sector, but that cuts of half a billion pounds are coming down the line in 2021. We need to have the detail about those proposals, which were in the Red Book and autumn statement last year.
We wait with bated breath, alongside the 700,000 people currently using housing support, to see the adequacy of the supported housing deal. The new deal must recognise that the uncertainty has had an impact on the sector’s capacity by undermining providers’ ability to build. Government inaction has resulted in an 85% reduction in supported housing development, at a time when there is already a shortfall of nearly 17,000 supported housing units. That means that those who one day might need such provision will not have it. I recently visited a refuge that looks after women and children fleeing domestic abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has said, people are being turned away. It is important that we recognise the inadequacy of current provision.
When the Government finally publish their statement on the new approach to supported housing next week, I hope that they will recognise the design flaws in universal credit, which make it totally incompatible with the needs of people who are reliant on supported housing. I am pleased that the Government are bringing to an end the uncertainty about supported housing. I hope that they will also think again about the many other universal credit issues and agree to pause it while we work to fix it.
Over a year ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised to help the worst-off among us, but there has not been a single achievement. In many cases, including this one, progress has stalled. We could point to the Government’s slashing of funding for affordable homes, the withdrawal of housing benefit from young people or the reductions in local housing allowance for private tenants, which are making sections of the country into places where low-income families simply cannot live. All those measures  are short-term attempts to balance the books on the back of the most vulnerable. None of them addresses the root cause of the problem, which is the Government’s total failure to build enough affordable and social homes to meet people’s needs. That problem was recognised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, although seemingly not by his Chancellor.
I am pleased that today’s statement suggests that the Government are considering the recommendations made jointly by the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on the future of supported housing. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on their contribution to that work.
After all, the independent Committees’ report, which was drafted and agreed by Members from all parties, found that supported housing delivered excellent value for money and significant cost savings to the wider public sector, while maximising quality of life. They agreed with us that the Government must introduce a long-term and sustainable funding settlement, but raised concerns about previous proposals to extend the LHA. The Committees jointly suggested that the local housing allowance rate is not an appropriate place to start when determining the funding settlement. There is no correlation, as we have heard, between the cost of providing supported housing and local housing allowances.
Labour supports the Committees’ calls to introduce a new supported housing allowance set at a rate higher than the current cap. Alongside that, we need a separate funding system to safeguard short-term and emergency accommodation, including women’s refuges, and we must ensure that any new funding model does not threaten future supply of supported housing. We will hold the Government to account on their delivery of a new funding model. The next steps are laid out before the Government, and I hope that in their statement next week, they will commit to taking those steps. They should end this two-year impasse now, or stand aside and allow a Labour Government to get on with the job.

Caroline Dinenage: I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue. We have heard from a huge number of colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. I thank them all for their really valuable contributions, as well as for their support for this essential sector and their individual stories, particularly those drawing attention to the work—we all understand that it is incredible valuable—that is done by the suppliers of supported housing and sheltered accommodation in their constituencies.
I want to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to supported housing. It plays a vital role for many vulnerable people, as so many Members have said. It gives them a safe and supportive place where they can live as independently as possible. The Government are keen to ensure that those living in supported accommodation and those who provide this type of housing receive appropriate payment and protections. We also want building and further development in this sector to meet the projected future demand and ensure we can offer supported housing provision to those who need it.
That is why we have announced today that the local housing allowance cap will not be applied to social sector tenants, including those living in supported housing. It is absolutely essential—for providers, commissioners and vulnerable tenants, as well as for taxpayers—that we put the supported housing sector funding model on a sustainable footing and ensure that it works for all. We will announce our proposals for supported housing next week, and I hope these will show that we have listened to what people and organisations have said and that we have understood the issues.

Mary Glindon: Will the Minister give an assurance that the YMCA, the largest charitable provider of young people’s supported housing, which has expressed lots of concerns, has been given a full hearing and that its suggestions have been taken fully on board in the review?

Caroline Dinenage: A lot of comments have been made about how long it has taken to get to this point, but that is because we have spoken extensively with valuable stakeholders such as the YMCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) told us about the incredible value of that organisation and others.
As has been said, the DWP, in conjunction with the DCLG, concluded a 12-week consultation on the supported housing sector earlier this year. As many Members have rightly suggested, it is absolutely vital that we listen to the concerns that the sector has raised, and that is precisely what we have been doing. We welcome the input that we have received in this consultation—the views of the sector, local government and other stakeholders—as well as the excellent joint report from the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee. I add my congratulations to both Committees on their work. We have been carefully taking stock of these views, considering the recommendations and continuing our extensive conversation with the sector. We have done so to make sure that we get the detail right before making an announcement and that the services provided are as good as they can be.
This morning’s announcement by the Prime Minister has already been embraced by the sector, which has acknowledged that we are listening to their concerns. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation has said:
“Things are really starting to change and it is great to see social housing getting the right kind of attention it deserves.”
The chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing has also welcomed the announcement, suggesting that the Government have
“clearly listened to the concerns of housing professionals across the UK”.
Several Members have raised concerns about how confidence in future funding is having an impact on the supply of supported housing. As I believe has been made very clear during this debate, we are absolutely determined to achieve our goal of ensuring a long-term sustainable future for the whole supported housing sector. Indeed, the National Housing Federation has welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcements  on housing, which demonstrate that social housing and house building are firmly at the top of the Government’s agenda.
We understand that the sector needs certainty to help it to continue to plan and deliver much-needed new supported housing, including sheltered housing for older people. We need to inject confidence into a sector that is in need of clarity about the future arrangements and to reignite the stalled supply as soon as possible. However, it was vital not to be too hasty or rushed in reaching this decision. We have taken time to get things right and to take into account voices from the sector to ensure that this is sustainable in the long term and protects those who are most vulnerable and who most need our support.
The Government have a good track record in safeguarding supported housing and boosting new supply. Since 2011, we have delivered 27,000 units of specialist and general housing for disabled, vulnerable and older people. We announced £400 million of funding in the spending review to deliver new specialist affordable homes for the vulnerable, elderly or those with disabilities. In addition, there will be more specialised homes funded by the Department of Health.

Paul Farrelly: In my area of Newcastle-under-Lyme, our local housing association, Aspire, is not building affordable or supported housing at all. It is developing in higher property price areas in Cheshire to recycle the money to support its existing estates because of the squeeze on its finances and income from Government policies. Is there not something fundamentally wrong when a local housing association cannot build affordable housing at all?

Caroline Dinenage: That flies in the face of what the National Housing Federation said; the Government are giving confidence to suppliers to build into the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, we recognise and celebrate the diversity of the supported housing sector and we are reflecting this in the design of the reformed funding model. We want to ensure that the model is flexible and responsive to meet the variety of needs and demands placed on it for such a diverse sector and client base. Across the Government, we have considered the needs of all supported housing groups, including those with learning difficulties, physical and sensory disabilities and mental health problems, older people and those experiencing homelessness and seeking refuge from domestic abuse. We are working hard to ensure that the funding model reflects the unique range of provision in the supported housing sector, and we are listening to the sector to make sure we get that right. I believe that that will be seen in our response to the consultation, and we have always been clear that we are committed to developing a separate model that will work for short-term accommodation.
I want to address some of the concerns raised today about short-term supported and emergency housing such as hostels and refuges, which play a vital role in providing consistent, high-quality support for many vulnerable people who have experienced or are experiencing a crisis, such as fleeing domestic abuse. That was mentioned by a number of Members from all parties. We have always been very clear that we are committed to developing a separate funding model that will work well for people requiring help from these types of accommodation.  As a former Minister for Equalities, I carry on my passion for tackling domestic abuse, which is a key priority for this Government.
We fully support the valuable work carried out by women’s refuges and other supported accommodation providers, and we are fully committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are not turned away from the support that they need. Since 2014, we have invested £33.5 million in services to support victims and the number of beds for victims of domestic violence has gone up. I want to be unambiguous about this: everyone who uses short-term supported and emergency housing such as hostels and refuges and who is eligible to have their housing costs met by housing benefit under the current system will continue to have these costs met through any new funding model for short-term accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North mentioned the YMCA setting, social enterprises and adopting to change. We welcomed his valuable and characteristically positive addition to the debate, and that is exactly the kind of innovative and flexible approach that the Government promote. It is absolutely right that we should do our best in government to listen to and support the sector, but we should also take the opportunity to recognise the tireless work and groundbreaking approaches, such as that which he identified today.
We have listened to the views of the sector on sheltered and extra care housing through its response to our consultation, through its participation in our task and finish groups and through its involvement in the joint work of the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees. We have heard the concerns that it has raised, and it is clear that an alternative model is required to secure supply. The Government recognise that supported housing helps many vulnerable people to stand on their own feet and lead independent lives. We have done a lot of work to understand the needs of individuals who live in long-term supported housing. We are committed to protecting and boosting the provision of supported and older people’s sheltered housing and to ensuring we get the new model right to ensure that that housing is funded sustainably in the long term.
The Government are clear that everyone who would be eligible under the current system to have their supported housing costs met by housing benefit will continue to have their housing costs met under the new funding model. We are committed to protecting provision of supported and older people’s sheltered housing to ensure that we get the new model right and that funding for supported housing is sustainable.
The Government’s intention is to find the best means to deliver improvements in quality, oversight and value for money, while recognising the need to give appropriate consideration to the concerns raised by the sector through the consultation and the Select Committees. I can confirm that we will be able to announce the plans for supported housing next week and answer many more of the questions that hon. Members have raised. I am convinced that, when the announcement is made, it will be clear that we have listened and properly consulted and considered the concerns of all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to halt its current plans to cap, at the local housing allowance rate, help with housing costs for tenants of supported housing and to adopt instead a system which safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing, building on the recommendations of the First Joint Report of the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees of Session 2016-17, Future of supported housing, HC 867.

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the Prime Minister made an announcement at Prime Minister’s questions, ahead of our Opposition day debate today, that the Government will drop their plans for a crude cap and cuts to supported housing, have you or Mr Speaker had any indication that Ministers, when they make the full announcement next week, which the Minister has just mentioned, will come and make the announcement to the House with an oral statement? In the light of the unanimous support for our motion tonight and the widespread concern about the Government’s plans over the past two years on both sides of the House and across the sector, it is clearly really important that Members can question Ministers on the announcement in full that they make.

Lindsay Hoyle: The one thing we can be sure of is that I have been given no notice that anybody is coming forward and I do not think Mr Speaker will have been given notice at this stage. What I would say is that the right hon. Gentleman has certainly put on record his concerns. His views and opinions have been recorded. As he would expect, it is not for the Chair to look at the decision on the vote. That is a matter for the House and certainly not the Chair.

PETITION - SAVE OUR SHIRE HILL HOSPITAL

Ruth George: I would like to present a petition, signed by 4,670 people, residents of the United Kingdom and Glossopdale, to the House of Commons to save our Shire Hill Hospital. It declares opposition to the closure of the Shire Hill Hospital in Glossop as the only credible option in the consultation given. I pay tribute to the staff of Shire Hill and the people of Glossop, who have spent weeks and months campaigning and getting these signatures.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares opposition to the closure of the Shire Hill Hospital in Glossop as it is the only credible option.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to rule the consultation invalid an enable Shire Hill Hospital to continue their excellent rehabilitation service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002068]

Mental Health: Pharmacists

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Kevan Jones: I wish to use tonight’s Adjournment debate to raise the sad case of my constituent Alison Stamps, a 33-year-old pharmacist who sadly took her own life on 25 May 2015. I will outline the circumstances of the case, but will also raise wider concerns that I and her family have around the operation of Boots UK and how it dealt with her death, as well as my broader concerns concerning pharmacists and mental health issues.
Alison was clearly an exceptionally bright and talented individual. After finishing at Pelton Roseberry comprehensive school in my constituency in 2000, she went on to study—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Kevan Jones: Alison went on to study biology at Durham University and graduated in 2003. She then began work as an audit and accounting technician at Sunderland city hospital before choosing to return to university—the University of Sunderland—to study for a four-year masters degree in pharmacy. While she was at Sunderland, Alison was awarded the prize for the best overall student in the first year, before going on to be awarded the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s award for the best student on a masters degree programme in 2012. Her achievements were remarkable, and clearly she was dedicated to public health and the pharmacy profession.
Alison began work at Boots’ Tindale store in Bishop Auckland in August 2013. Her parents tell me that she enjoyed the work but increasingly complained about the long hours and demands it placed upon her. By mid-December 2014 she was clearly overwhelmed by what she was having to do. Her store manager noticed that she was losing weight and looking unwell. Following a conversation with the store manager, Alison expressed how down she felt. The store manager provided her with a phone number for an independent counselling service and encouraged her to speak to her GP and her family. Like many people in Alison’s position, she felt she could not speak to her family or strangers about her situation. Still concerned, her manager arranged an appointment with a GP for Alison and even attended the appointment with her. I understand that the GP indicated that she should take antidepressants, but Alison did not wish to do that. The GP gave her a crisis number to ring and also suggested some other coping mechanisms.
At this point, I would like to commend the actions of the store manager, who I think genuinely tried to help Alison. I understand that she reported her concerns about Alison to her area manager, and I have had it confirmed by the director of human resources at Boots that this case was referred and flagged up with the firm’s central HR department. It appears that all that happened, however, is that the store manager was advised about what counselling was available, but no alarm bells rang in Boots’ central HR department that one of its pharmacists  was in crisis situation and no action seems to have been taken. Instead, it was left to the store manager to do her best to assist Alison in her time of crisis.
This raises serious concerns about how Boots as a company handled the case. Having been made aware of Alison’s situation, no attempt seems to have been made centrally or high up in the organisation to intervene directly. This was a young woman not only holding down a responsible job dispensing medicines but who was clearly in a severe mental health crisis. Throughout this time, the store manager was also aware that Alison was self-harming—she had confided in her that she had cut her legs. For six months, Boots was aware of Alison’s situation but simply left it to the store manager to deal with it, although I put it on the record again that she did a great job in trying to help, and she did it to the best of her ability.
Sadly, on 25 May 2015, Alison took her own life in a room at the Hardwick Hall hotel, having taken an overdose of prescription medication. At the coroner’s inquest, it was determined that Alison had taken her own life while suffering from depression. Her parents, Mr and Mrs Stamps, attended the inquest. So did representatives from Boots, who made no attempt whatsoever to offer sympathy or speak to the family. The coroner invited those present to introduce themselves, but because it was a public hearing, the Boots representatives chose not to do so. Mr and Mrs Stamps felt, I think understandably, that their attitude was very legalistic—that they were concerned with their fears about the possibility of a legal case as a result of Alison’s death, rather than with having a compassionate understanding of how her death had occurred.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising an issue in which he takes a great interest, as is clear from other occasions when he has spoken in the House. I believe that this very sad case highlights for all of us the need to ensure that those in the workplace are given adequate training to offer support to workers with depression or other mental health issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must initiate, or make available, courses for all small and medium-sized enterprises, which would be free of charge and which would provide tools for employers that would enable them to help such staff members?

Kevan Jones: As I have said on other occasions, I think that mental health in the workplace is one of the big issues that we do not talk about. I think the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion should be considered, but what struck me about this case was that it involved not a small employer but a huge multinational company, which should have had the capacity within its organisation to provide assistance.

Liz Twist: Does my hon. Friend agree that all employers could benefit from having policies to support staff when they are at work, and when, sadly, an employee dies by suicide? Should not employers be encouraged to take up programmes such as those developed by the Samaritans, Business in the Community and Public Health England for the benefit of staff?

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she is involved with the Samaritans, and I congratulate her on the work that she does. Yes, there are a lot of tools out there for companies to use, but they must take  them seriously rather than treating them as a tick-box exercise. Policies of this kind must actually be used in the workplace, and people must be trained so that if they encounter a case like Alison’s, they do take it seriously. That is what I would have expected from a large company such as Boots.
Anyone who has looked at the details of this case cannot but be moved by its tragic nature, and by the failure of Boots to exercise its duty of care at a national level. Mr and Mrs Stamps are certain that the long hours and the workload that Alison faced were a contributory factor in her death. I have spoken to representatives of the pharmacists’ trade union, the Pharmacy Defence Association. They made it clear that there are increasing demands on pharmacists, not only in terms of workload but as a result of staff cuts. Last year an article in The Guardian highlighted the situation at Boots, including many emails from Boots’ pharmacists claiming that profit was being put in the place of pharmacists’ health, and that they were increasingly being asked to hit targets for medicines use reviews—the company is paid £28 per review by the NHS—rather than concentrating on dispensing and the care of patients.
Those pressures are putting an increasing strain on pharmacists who work for companies such as Boots, but, like Alison, many choose not to complain, because they fear that if they do so they will lose their jobs or their professional qualifications will be withdrawn. That is a particular issue in the context of mental health, and in professions such as pharmacy. People remain silent for fear of the consequences of speaking up. I think that pharmacists need a system like the one that has been introduced for GPs. Many GPs also do not want to talk about their mental health problems because they fear that they will be disciplined. I think that that was Alison’s fear: she feared that if she raised issues relating to her mental health, she would be taken down the disciplinary route and lose her job.
I suggest to the Minister that that needs to be looked at. Pharmacists should have a system similar to that for GPs. I have done some work on this with GPs. The NHS has the GP health service, which is a confidential service for both GPs and trainees. I have met some of its staff, and it works very well in allowing GPs to self-refer confidentially. The GP health service can help doctors with anything to do with mental health, including stress and depression. The effort that has been made to ensure that there is GP support needs to be replicated for pharmacists, because I can say from a personal point of view that, with the best will in the world, giving someone with depression a helpline to ring is not the answer. People do not ring them; I can say from personal experience that I would not have done so when I suffered from depression. The work done for GPs offers a way forward that I ask the Minister to explore.
I also have to raise questions with the Minister about the role of the General Pharmaceutical Council. Following Alison’s death and Mr and Mrs Stamps coming to see me, I wrote to the GPC asking for its opinion of the case. It wrote back saying that its role was to protect patients by
“setting and upholding standards for individual pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.”
I understand that the GPC has been aware of complaints concerning Boots’ working practices for pharmacists, but has taken no action against that company or—so  far as I can see—any other company about how pharmacists were being employed. That raises the question of what this regulator is actually doing.
It is also disappointing that the regulator sees itself as a peripheral player on the issue of workplace pressure and stress, and the pressures put on pharmacists. This stance by the regulator allows employers such as Boots to preside over poor working conditions without any threat of sanction. It says that its job is to protect patients, but if a pharmacist has a severe mental health problem that is being created by workplace pressures and stress, that must be putting patients at risk. The potential danger of mistakes being made will be heightened if pharmacists are under such pressure.
In response to Alison’s death it seems as though Boots was most concerned about its own reputation. At the time, its main concern appeared to be whether any controlled drugs were missing from the pharmacy where she worked. It would appear that the drugs that Alison took to end her life came from the unused drugs that were returned to the pharmacy by patients. Although there is a register of these drugs, I wonder whether there should be tighter regulation because it is up to individual pharmacies whether the drugs are recorded. There should be a process of monitoring how the drugs are collected, registered and ultimately destroyed.
While doing the research for this debate I tried to find statistics on mental health problems and suicide among pharmacists. I am not aware of any statistics being held centrally that show this information. We might look into collating such figures to inform this debate, which is clearly ongoing.
Alison Stamps’ death is a tragedy, not only for her family but for us all as citizens, as we have lost a bright, conscientious young lady with much to offer. Her life was, sadly, cut short by circumstances she thought she could not face. It is quite clear that lessons need to be learned and that changes need to be made, not just in the way we regulate pharmacists but in the way we employ them and treat them in the workplace. Alison’s employer, Boots, should take stock not only of how it is dealing with her case but of how it employs other people within its organisation. It would be right to finish with something that Mr and Mrs Stamps said in a letter to me when they first raised the case with me. They said:
“It is clear that Alison was a victim of corporate greed and collateral damage by an uncaring company intent only on its own agenda.”

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for bringing this debate before the House tonight. I am especially gratified to see so many hon. Members in attendance. This illustrates the very real concern that we have for suicide as an issue, and I welcome their participation here. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been deeply concerned by this incident, and my thoughts also go out to Alison’s family, friends and colleagues. This must be an extremely difficult episode for them. He has described a young woman of great talent and potential, and with timely support she could still have been with us today. I am truly sorry that we have had to hold this debate at all, but in doing so we must learn the appropriate lessons from this case.
Every death by suicide is a tragedy. As the Minister responsible for mental health, I hear from families bereaved by suicide about the devastating impact it has on them. That is why I am determined to drive forward the action we are taking at national level and within local communities to reduce suicides. I am encouraged that suicide numbers have fallen in recent years but they still remain too high. I am aware that the north-east of England has the highest suicide rate in England, and that Durham has one of the highest suicide rates in the region. Really, however, this debate is about Alison Stamps. I am aware that she was a pharmacist, and the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of suicide risk among pharmacists. He has also put on record his concerns about Boots as an employer. Alison clearly had support in the workplace, but her colleagues did not know how best to help her, and that is not satisfactory.
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Office for National Statistics has published research on the suicide risk in occupational groups. While the research did not find a high risk in pharmacists specifically, there is a heightened risk of suicide among health professionals generally. I understand that Alison’s family raised concerns with the coroner about the awareness of mental health issues in the workplace and the ability of employers to support people who experience problems. This is an important concern and one that the Government are addressing.
First, we are looking at the issue of mental health first aid. In Alison’s case, this could have helped. Although general awareness has been raised, we recognise that there is further to go. That is why we have recently announced that we are investing £15 million to deliver an ambitious national mental health campaign to ensure that at least 1 million people receive mental health awareness training. That will be starting next year. Through innovative national programmes to engage the public and continuing to raise the importance of mental health in the same way that we do with physical health, we will increase awareness and knowledge, as well as challenging stigma.
The real concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the support—or rather, lack of it—provided to Alison by her employer is firmly at the top of the list in terms of what the Government are doing to address this issue. We recently commissioned Lord Dennis Stevenson and Paul Farmer to conduct a review of how people are supported in the workplace in relation to their mental health and wellbeing. I can advise the House that the outcome will be published shortly, and we will expect employers to step up to the plate as a result of what is in the review.
Pharmacists carry out important and precise work in dispensing medication, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that they are exposed to the very tools that can be used to take their own lives if they are minded to do so. I am aware that organisations such as the Pharmacist Support charity, which was set up by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, do a tremendous amount to support pharmacists on a wide range of issues. That organisation also publishes information and resources about mental health support.
The hon. Gentleman has asked what more can be done, but from the Government’s perspective, the buck stops with the employers. It is they who must ensure  that there is sufficient mental health support for their workers. There is much happening in this space, but change will not happen overnight. I am acutely aware that this has come too late for Alison Stamps and her family and is of little consolation, but I hope that improving mental health awareness and creating more mentally friendly and healthy workplaces will increase the likelihood that people will feel able to talk about their mental health problems at work and be assured they will get the understanding and support they need.
I am pleased to say that the profile of suicide prevention has never been so high, which is testament to the progress we are collectively making in tackling the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health problems more widely. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for that. He has done much to raise awareness in this place of the impact of mental ill health. The Prime Minister has spoken about her commitment to tackling the burning injustices of people who experience mental ill health, and many well-known figures have helped to bring this vital issue into the national conversation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for mentioning the fantastic work of the Samaritans—what would we do without them? I am pleased to say that I met Ruth Sutherland just this week. The Samaritans is a key partner as we tackle the whole issue of suicide prevention.
Turning to Government action and the suicide prevention strategy, we are making a big step forward and responding to the calls of stakeholders. We need to ensure that locally managed suicide prevention plans are targeted, and we will provide support where plans are insufficient. We have done that because a previous suicide attempt is the strongest indicator of future risk of suicide, so local areas need to keep that intelligence and act upon it. We welcomed last year’s Health Committee inquiry into suicide prevention, which made a wide range of recommendations to reduce suicides. The Government published their response in July to set out how we are progressing many of those recommendations. We also welcomed the recommendation in the five year forward view for mental health to reduce suicides by 10% by 2020-21. The commitment is supported by an additional £25 million between 2018-19 and 2020-21, and we are working with NHS England and other stakeholders to identify the priorities for this funding in local areas.
Local areas are where real change will be delivered, and I am pleased to report that 98% of local areas have a suicide prevention plan in place or in development. I am also pleased that Durham County Council, which serves the constituency of the hon. Member for North Durham, is part of that 98%. Our aim is to reach 100% by the end of the year, but we need a qualitative assessment of the quality of the plans. We do not want this to be a box-ticking exercise, so we will work with local areas to ensure that their plans are high quality and to identify areas for improvement.
We remain committed to delivering the five year forward view for mental health and the Prime Minister’s mental health reforms. That work is supported by an additional £1 billion of funding up to 2020-21 to ensure that an additional 1 million people can access mental health services. We certainly do not want people like Alison Stamps to feel that they have nowhere to go. Much of that investment will directly impact suicide prevention, such as the £400 million we have invested in developing mental health crisis services in the community  and the £250 million to implement liaison mental health teams in emergency departments to support people who present at general hospitals with mental health problems.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In Northern Ireland, where health is devolved, we have not had an Assembly for 10 months and we do not have a Health Minister. May I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a suicide prevention strategy? She says that there is a national strategy. I love the word “national” because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so will the Minister ensure that the permanent secretary for the Health Department in Northern Ireland is aware of the progress being made in the rest of the United Kingdom? I am encouraged by what she has said this evening.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, and I will ensure that that is taken up with officials in Northern Ireland, because it is important that the situation is tackled locally.
Members may also be aware that we launched the “Beyond Places of Safety” programme this month to provide £15 million of support for local community-based projects to ensure that there are more appropriate places of safety for people experiencing a mental health crisis and to avoid police custody or unnecessary hospital admissions. That builds on the £15 million we invested in the first phase of the programme.
The forthcoming children and young people Green Paper will set out a range of measures to improve access to services and support for young people. We will provide mental health first aid training to all state secondary schools by 2019, and we will expand that training to state primary schools. I hope hon. Members will agree  that the Government’s continued investment and drive to improve mental health services will bring real change for people.
The death of Alison Stamps has been particularly tragic. Her case is a clear lesson that employers need to be alive to the mental health needs of their staff, and I make it clear that that is what we expect. There is political consensus that we must address issues such as suicide prevention, so now is the time for us all to take action to make change a reality for people and communities. We must be ambassadors in ensuring that employers step up to the plate.
As I have set out, this Government are committed to tackling the burning injustices experienced by people with mental health problems so that more people will feel able to speak out about their problems and feel confident that they will get support from those around them, including their employer. I was struck when the hon. Member for North Durham said that people are scared to speak out in case they end up being taken down a disciplinary process or losing their job. That is not acceptable, and employers need to ensure that employees realise that support will be forthcoming.
We have made huge strides on delivering parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, and on ensuring that more people have timely access to services when they need them, but there is still much more to do. We must not be complacent in pursuing those goals. We will be tireless in that pursuit, and I can tell from their interest that other hon. Members will be tireless, too. We must ensure that other families do not have to experience the grief and pain that Alison’s family are feeling now.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.